Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, etc... (Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public 😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve future contents. A big thank you from all of us.
His ancestors didn’t use physics, mathematics, computer simulations etc to reach their decisions. He has highlighted some very real challenges. Funding is going to be a massive issue. No one is going to want to pay for these missions.
Humans have only ventured into space for the past 60 years or so. Give "us" another 1000 years and who knows what may happen? In the near term, I can easily see the moon becoming much like the current ISS ... that is, a permanently manned outpost that grows in size and complexity over time.
With what we humans have allowed to become acceptable and the decadence of society, do you really think humanity will be allowed to continue down this spiral much longer??
@@cryharder1877 read my question again I asked what did humans make acceptable which makes YOU so pessimistic the answer to this question is subjective so you need to provide an answer.
Colonizing Antarctica, the oceans surface and the deep sea on earth is so much easier than colonizing any planet or moon in our solar system and yet we don’t do that either because it’s either too expensive or nobody wants live permanently inside a station. And now imagine living underground because of a lack of a magnetic field or always having to wear a space suit once you step outside. And even mining operations don’t make any sense as it’s just too expensive and a lot cheaper to dig on good old earth.
It's easier in a technical kind of way, not so much politically. Antarctica is hugely contested due to the suspected resources there, anyone trying to create a permanent national settlement there and thus establish possession of it(possession is 9/10 of the law as they say) better be willing to bleed for it.
D-oh you said it first. You didn't mention Venus, (the atmosphere not the surface) and that it would be much easier to colonize than Mars, (and even the Moon in a lot of ways) tho' so I won't delete my comment. Venus also has the advantage of virtually unlimited energy. That's huge! Can't have that on Mars.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Its more about where's the economic gain? As space becomes cheaper to travel to it will make the commercialization of it much easier. Once mining ops and research stations become a thing in space then you'll build places for people live. A lot of the towns in the western US started as mining towns.
Pretty sure you wouldn't want our only immediately habitable world covered with more massive quarries and factories. You'd want that shit in space so you don't end up with a warhammer 40k forge world.
True now. What about 27 thousand years from now? There are a thousand million in each billion. What about 2 million 600 thousand years from now? This video doesn't adequately count for time
@@fernandobernardo6324 If you're just looking at the next century it's probably far to say it ain't happening but technology moves forward and nudges things from outlandish to possible. It's difficult to imagine humanity reaching the fusion age and not casting itself across the solar system shortly there after. Most of the reasoning used in the video is to the order of "You can just get stuff easier on earth" and in broad strokes that's true but he glosses over the idea that if it ever does become technically and practically possible to establish a self sustaining colony off Earth then people will go because now there is a chance for them to set up something new and stake their own claim.....people will take that offer.
@@austinduke8876 Sure anything is hypothetically possible on a long enough timescale, but then again possible and probable are two words with different meanings for a reason.
"I can't imagine anyone would want to live there." There is the main problem with this video. Sorry, I spent my childhood dreaming of living on the Moon, and if the opportunity to live the rest of my life there, I would jump at the opportunity. I am not the only one. The script also said about Mars that eventually no one would want to live there anymore than living in the Australian desert. This is such an ignorant statement, because it shows total ignorance of the large numbers of people who live in the Australian desert. There are many towns, and plenty of people love the isolation and the beauty of desolate landscapes. Most interesting is Coober Pedy, a desert town, where people live underground to escape the desert heat, and water has to be extracted from deep underground, and so full of minerals that it is essentially poisonous that it has to be purified by an expensive osmosis process, and every liter is treated like gold. There is also a town in Antarctica called Villa Las Estrellas administered by Chile, and babies have been born there. There is the huge American base at the South Pole, and one of the Australian Antarctic bases has a brewery brewing Antarctic beer. Humans have a proven record of wanting to live in the most inhospitable places on Earth, and somehow making it work. Just because the channel owner here wants to live where he can have a nice life with all the comforts, he ignores the millions of us who love adventure and going to dangerous places. There are plenty of people who love risking all. These are the people who will colonize the Solar System. The Australian deserts were initially found by scientific expeditions. It was science that took Captain Cook to the Pacific. Adventurers followed, politics and conquest took advantage, poor people wanting to find gold, and freedom from oppressive governments were happy to endure hardships. This is how a new country grew. The Moon and Mars will take longer, but the same human drives will be at work, finding ways to make it happen, despite the unsuitability of humans for many of these places. We will do it because we are inventors who like to solve problems. Science starts the process of colonization, but normal human desires will drive the rest. Sign me up, I want to go.
You'd be living underground on pretty much every world though, venturing outside only for short periods due to radiation. We won't be living out of our home world long without space colonies.
1900s, somewhere in the British countryside. "A human will never learn to fly faster than the wind, and transport cargo through the air! It will always be just a dream!"
But you can also find quotes declaring that huge amounts of our food will be grown under the ocean. And artificial hearts will be used by millions to live normal daily lives. Beware overzealousness.
@@ТарасМакаренко-ф3ш I believe elitecoder's point was that we were doing what animals had previously done. We watched and learned from birds for centuries before we developed powered flight. And the principle of flight is simple physics. Terraforming Mars would take centuries of consecutive support from the political and financial institutions of Earth. How long did those institutions keep backing Moon missions? Three and one half years, before enthusiasm ran out. That's another obstacle that is beyond just the technological ones.
There are several reasons why some scientists express skepticism about colonizing the solar system: * Distances Involved: The vast distances between planets in our solar system pose a significant challenge. It can take months or even years to travel between planets with current propulsion technologies. This makes interstellar travel expensive, time-consuming, and risky for humans. * Harsh Environments: Most planets and moons in our solar system are not hospitable to life as we know it. They lack breathable atmospheres, have extreme temperatures, and are bombarded by radiation. Terraforming entire planets to create Earth-like conditions is a theoretical concept with numerous hurdles. * Resource Limitations: Establishing self-sustaining colonies on other planets would require significant resources. Transporting the necessary materials, food, and water across vast distances would be extremely challenging. * Technology Challenges: Current propulsion methods limit travel speeds and mission durations. Developing advanced technologies for faster travel, radiation shielding, and in-situ resource utilization (using resources available on other planets) is crucial for establishing permanent colonies. * Economic and Political Considerations: Colonizing the solar system would require a massive, international effort with long-term commitment. Political and economic feasibility are significant factors to consider. However, there's also a counter-argument: * Technological Advancements: The pace of technological innovation is constantly accelerating. Breakthroughs in areas like propulsion, material science, and robotics could drastically change the feasibility of colonizing the solar system in the future. * Human Ingenuity: Humans have a history of overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges. Our ability to adapt and innovate could pave the way for future space colonization efforts. Overall, colonizing the solar system presents a complex set of challenges, but it's not entirely a dream. It's an ongoing exploration effort with both skeptics and optimists. The future of space exploration will depend on our ability to overcome these challenges and develop the necessary technologies.
@@Azamat421 the amount of disease and war we had to deal with a thousand years ago was way worse than now. My point was, if we survive as a species another 1000 years it's very plausable we will be colonizing other planets.
There is a difference between feasibility and desirability. We'll get better at space travel but in the end, places like Mars will still have nothing to offer, over an above simply remaining on Earth. Again, being able to do something is not the same as that something being worth doing.
@@saumyacow4435 asteriod mining is very likely to be both something we figure out how to do and something worth doing in the next 20-30 years which could lead to deep space colonization being more desirable and more worthwhile.
Try going to jail and being kept in a cell by yourself all day with nothing but some books and getting out to only take a shower. I'm sure after a month you'll be happy to be around ANYONE lol.
My PTSD comes from being hunted and beaten for sport in the name of Jesus during Don't Ask Don't Tell circa 1999. I have a pretty firm understanding of what humans can call 'love' and alike. That's a big reason I look forward to Hell, Christians can do anything and just say 'sorry' and get into Heaven. At least those in Hell had to endure SOME kind of judgement. Besides, Heaven will be a shit-show of people judging one another, condemning one another... Fuck all that noise lol
@@brockb4452 I'm a 45 year old disabled vet who is Autistic and Homosexual. All I know is hatred and judgement from the others in my nation whom I have served. No offense, nothing will change my mind.
I totally agree here. All this talk is nothing but talk. Space is far too deadly for us to ever make it there for very long. We are just not made for it.
Us as humans used the same tools for hundreds of thousands of years, and yet in just the last few centuries our technological capabilities have grown exponentially. The colonization of our solar system is not the solution to all our problems, rather it is a question, and the answer is yes. It will be done provided we have the chance to continue developing. People have been saying this or that is impossible since the beginning of recorded history, and yet here we are today having mastered flight, doing things people would have thought were just fairy tales hundreds of years ago. The reasons for space travel are endless, ambition, resources, fostering national pride, the list goes on as far as the very void we will conquer. Even if we don't go into space out of curiosity, but rather for greed, it will be exploration none the less. Doubt is the enemy of progress, don't let it stop us before we've even begun.
no it will not be done. just think of how often things go wrong here on Earth. everything on this planet needs routine maintenance of some kind. with the occasional catastrophe happening that requires tens of millions of dollars to come back from. one catastrophic event on a foreign planet would end that entire colonization endeavor. everyone there would die. and nobody else would be dumb enough to try it again. and that's taking it as far as actually making a colony. the actual building of the infrastructure on a foreign planet is even more impossible than surviving a catastrophic event after that infrastructure gets built.
this is not a science fiction novel. this is really fkn life. and we do not and will not ever have the means of moving a colony of people to a planet with no atmosphere. period. there are way too many variables and safety hazards to overcome that we will never be able to get past. stop living in fantasy land man. this will be the only planet that humans will ever live on. why not try colonizing the ocean before colonizing another planet? that's much more feasible. but again, one catastrophic failure and the whole colony drowns.
You make valid points based on current technology. I think it all depends on what technology is developed or discovered or even shared in the future as to whether we can colonize our solar system or others.
Yea.. He seems to think boomer tech will be as far as we get! :D He seems to think we want to make other planets earth instead of enjoying them as violent nasty weird planets too... He also seems to think space mining is to take minerals back.. to earth!?!?!?! And lastly he thinks humans need a reason to go live somewhere... But they just need to have no one stopping them... :)
Great video making great points. I would not say space colonization will NEVER happen, but I do believe it is so far in the future that we really won’t be recognizably human anymore. I also must point out that Venus would NOT experience black nights; with such a high surface temperature, the ground itself would glow red-hot.
A lot of things have happened that people said would never happen. So i never say never. We have no idea if we'll colonize the system or not. If rocket technology gets more advanced and cheaper, like it is currently getting, then we might be able to colonize the system. Only time will tell.
Alternative propulsion methods are being studied. Nuclear power will likely be used for interplanetary travel in the near future while chemical engines will be relegated to only be used to reach orbit.
@@sprinter768 we are already BUILDING the spin thing which launches you 15 miles into the air saving 8 tonnes (NOT TONS) Which is A LOT and only cost 2 million to build which we are ALREADY building and only costs 6000$ for one launch. Which is Hella cheap compared to others.
This video only shows the perspective on an individual level. You don't want to live on Mars, so therefore you cannot foresee anyone else wanting to live on Mars. My counter argument to that is there are plenty of people on Earth (albiet not an overwhelming number) that want to live in isolation on Earth already. There are a very small percentage of people who live entirely off the grid. There are also people who love risks; who unnecessarily jump off cliffs, travel to war zones, travel to different dangerous places here on Earth to seek thrill. You can't simply dictate what others want to do just because you don't see the appeal or practicality. The initial group or groups of people who travel there commercially to start a new life would understand the risks, but also seek them. As long as the technology continues to exponentially advance that colonizing Mars is inevideble, and so is our solar system provided that there isn't an extinction event before then. We cannot be contained to one planet as long as there are people who want to go, and as long as there is enough engineering talent and money applied to the problem of getting and staying there.
The earthly risk takers you speak of don't require 100s to 1000s of other people to support their risky efforts. I doubt they would be considered for space colonization which will require very conscientious participants.
There is a lot of people in Earth who wants to abandon Earth forever and live in a hostile environment like Mars. Most os them have deep psichiatric problems who would be dangerous for the mission.
There are so many reasons that humans will never colonize space that are solid and measurable. I can see in the comments that there are so many dreamers that do not like this, but I think the video is spot on,. Not only that, people think we are going to continue to improve our technology, which I agree with, up to a point. However, I think there will come a time that we will start going backwards because of war and societal breakdown, which has started already.
Most people can't put these in order from largest to smallest. Earth, Universe, Sun, Galaxy, Moon. The understanding of physics by most people is near zero. They watch too much TV and see Jean Luc Picard flying in 5 minutes from Earth like planet to Earth like planet. It skews their thinking. Even relatively educated people don't think clearly about it and believe ridiculous things like aliens are secretly visiting Earth. Silly.
We maybe destroy everything but looking how we act the last decades it's always a up and down. I see it as part of our evolution. We are problem solvers and try so long we can. There always one who wants to break the boundaries it's our nature. I onced heard the funny theorie that we all are on counciousness experiencing live from different perpectivs. Well last is pretty dreamingfull but who knows. We see the universe in our way a small differnce in evolution could have completlly changed what we have become.
We really don't have a reason to leave earth. If we ever achieve the technology to travel through intergalactic space, we'd be better off staying on the space ship, but when it comes to resource mining, we don't even need other planets to farm resources in space because asteroids and comets would provide the resources required for mining and they are easier to reach. Our sun has five billion years before it expands into a red giant, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out way before then, we have plenty of time to figure out an eventual alternative to earth, but assuming we ever reach that stage, I have a feeling humanity will be living on space ships and rarely landing on planets, if at all. It all seems highly unlikely, but at the very least, we will have artificial intelligence out in space exploring everything for us.
We should definitely try to colonize the moon, even only to test our ability to live on another planet. Everyone expected that would be done in the previous century. If we can't even settle a permanent base on the moon, it's not worth thinking of anything else.
Im guessing there will be at least a moon base within 15 years. The U.S could have built one in the 70's. They had the entire project planned out but ended it because there was no need. Now China has ambitions to build a base there which will drive competition.
The premise of this video is derived from a limited understanding of the benefits of living in space. First of all, it is unlikely that large groups of people will live on Solar System's planets or moons. People will most likely live in O'Neil cylinders developed inside asteroids, mostly around the Earth-Moon system, at least to begin with. Once we will have industry on the moon, the space economy has a few undeniable advantages: cheap energy, cheap transport outside gravity wells, and unlimited surface resources available in the asteroid belt. Yes, Earth has more, but not near the surface, not as pure and not as simple to mine. Imagine how much effort it takes to mine something from under 2km shaft vs hauling a small asteroid full of iron or copper. An economy like that will be boundless.
youre thinking your lifetime and not your childrens lifetime. our ships will get faster and i suspect we will colonize both Mars as well as Proxima B, as well as the moon with about a million people on each, and have space hotels / casinos in between these as rest stops. In my lifetime? as long as i look both ways while crossing the street I should still be around in the 2060s, and will likely see this come to fruition, or at least partially.
This is why I'm more hyped about O'Neil cylinders than Mars. The materials to build them are everywhere in the solar system, especially the asteroid belt.
The most likely place for a manned scientific base near Jupiter would be Callisto not Europa. The radiation on Europa is too high! Callisto is outside the radiation belt and probes on Europa could be managed in very close to real time. Titan is also an interesting possibility.
There's a reason why Callisto is peppered with crater holes. It has no atmospheric defence against asteroid impacts. And being so far out from Jupiter, it can't rely on Jupiter's gravity to pull asteroids away.
@@Aquascape_Dreaming The best place to live is not on Callisto but under it. If Callisto has a warm core it might have agreeable temperatures in caves or excavated areas. This would give you protection from both radiation and surface meteor impacts. Not sure, but maybe if you lived under a suficent amount of water on Europa you could be protected from Jupiter's radiation? Depends on if Europe's ocean is deep enough I guess
Ganymede (sp?) maybe? I believe although weak, it actually has a magnetic field, could help with the radiation and what not. Maybe underground there; has a lot of water, a tiny amount of oxygen even in a thin atmosphere as well.
Wow! Pessimistic much? Thankfully, we as a species strive to know the unknown, which is why we are where we are now. Maybe you're right, but I'd like to think we'll keep pushing the limits and boundaries of human capability! Who knows what will happen in the next 500-1000 years...
@@FirstCelestialEmperor 150 years ago, flying was a dream, now it's a commute for some people (and me)! Like I said, maybe you're right, but I hope we strive to achieve colonisation... 👍
You make some very good points. At the moment humanity is far behind the level of science, politics and attitudes required for space exploration. We need at least another 1000 years of progress in those areas to take up space exploration seriously. The required techniques should be fully developed, not partially, to ensure successful implementation.
We could start a colony on the Moon right now. There's sunlight for power, or just bring along a safe, compact nuclear reactor (invented and tested in 1970.) There's ice for water and oxygen. Silica for glass all over. There are iron deposits also. Aluminum too, but that takes a crap-ton of electricity to refine. If I could live long enough, I have a spot picked out by Shackleton Crater. Near continuous sunlight, and ice deposits. I'd start by mining ice and getting hydroponics going. I'd get rich selling air, water, food and "cubic" to the latecomers, especially the Helium 3 miners. The merchants and suppliers get richest in a Gold Rush. Once the bureaurcats start showing up, I'd sell off for a new grubstake. Somebody is going to need to build a railroad from the spaceport that will inevitably be built on top of Mons Olympus to the mines and settlements. Might as well be me. Once the bureaucrats and busybodies start showing up there, I'd sell off again and head out to the Belts to start an asteroid mining business. Kind of short on sunlight out there, but there is ice in the belts. So with nuclear power you've got both oxygen and hydrogen for the plasma engines. And some of those asteroids have insane amounts of valuable metals. And there should be a booming shipping business hauling reactor fuel and other supplies out to the Belts and hauling ore/processed minerals back.
That is if humankind is actually here for another 1000 years. We are currently headed for global disaster. Humans are a highly disagreeable competetive species, the most dangerous Earth has ever known. It is not in our nature to work together for the good of the planet. Good news, the Earth could heal itself without us over time.
1000 seems like an arbitrarily long amount of time. I think it has more to do with when there are less problems on earth, which could be soon, in 100 years, in 500 years, or never(it’s truly up to us)
@@jimmylim5015 Who's to say the sun isn't made up of billions of glowing CIA agents getting ready to war with Earth, or elephants are actually ancient gods hiding in plain sight and observing us. Obviously, those statements are retarded, and I hope you know that's exactly how I view you. Who's to say you don't exist? You know what? You don't exist anymore, you are nothing. Goodbye!
When it comes to our future space achievements, the OP is pretty optimistic when it comes to time frame. I don't see us doing much in the next 30 years. I tend to agree with a lot of what he stated. My answer to the Fermi paradox is that we're all stranded in our respective solar systems. If we ever decide to mine the asteroid belt, it'll be done with robots. As far as Europa, I'd like to be optimistic about it hosting life but he may be right, it could be devoid of it. As well as the other ice shelled moons. However, science communication and futurist Isaac Arthur doesn't care for "gravity wells" and thinks many of our a̶n̶c̶e̶s̶t̶o̶r̶s̶ descendants will be building and living on mega structures. I'm not so optimistic but if there's one thing folks are usually bad at, is predicting the future. So... who knows? We'll just have to wait and see if any of it materializes in our lifetimes.
The only reason human beings may fail to move off planet into the solar system and beyond has nothing to do with physical laws. It has to do with the painful fact that we cannot get along with each other. We are inherently violent by nature. Deep inside the most peaceful of us hides a slayer. I do not believe our evoluionary experience can necessarily apply to all living beings in the universe. I must confess that i think we are an out layer...a mistake that is uncorrectable.
You (just like the masses of people with the same cognitive dissonance would be) are gravely mistaken in thinking it were an optimistic view to like to think the moon Europa hosts life. Read the Wikipedia page on animal suffering to know better. You're asking who knows, and I happen to know why no civilization in this universe is meant to colonize outer space.
It's one thing talking shit when one is in their own environment, confidence become more challenged when one mistake kills you. All humans know they will make mistakes from time to time. Although, robots may do the deadly work.
I've seen the previous “Never”-videos, and while FTL and extrasolar colonization *may* remain a dream, it can't be said with certainty. The closer you get to home, you cannot use words of certainty like “will” and “never” with the same level of vehemency. This would imply having a perfect understanding of the future or a medieval mindset of all that can be discovered has already been discovered. This is a very cynical approach to the future and on the other end of Musk & Co., the other extreme you could say. Even with our current technology, we could at least bootstrap bases. Colonization is a long-term goal that may be centuries away, it can be the result of many steps in between which may take just as long. All modern technology is the result of iterations after someone created a flawed initial product after a prototype. Scientific research and recognizing potential at the right time is basically going hand in hand, and it is unpredictable or foreseeable where it goes and when something will happen, or how it will play out. Once there is a demand, there is also opportunity and over time costs will go down and become a normalized part of any economy. Currently, there isn't much demand for more resources, just as there was no demand for more land to colonize in 1492; however, it's possible that the resources of the solar system may be tapped one day. Skepticism is fine, when it applies to specific concepts or ideas, but it's a bad tool for prognosis.
@Armchair Magpie, I concur with your well reasoned rebuttal. The author has hired a somewhat convincing voice actor to narrate, but the narration comes off as smug, cynical, and dismissive of any opinion contrary to the script's frequent failing fallback to "I believe" followed by an emphatic never, thus earning this viewer's thumbs down.
I agree! I've always thought that the idea of terraforming was ridiculous. If Earth was to become an inhospitable planet, why would we travel to another inhospitable planet and try to terraform it? Wouldn't we just stay and terraform Earth?
@Frumentarii There is only one basket. Earth is our only true option. We don't and may never have the resources or the technology needed to move and safely sustain a significant population of people on another planet.
@Frumentarii In 500 million years the sun will redshift to far for chlorophyll photosynthesis to work. That will be true for the entire system. People routinely suggest plants will adapt. Why? Are they chemists? The only red shifted photosynthesis I've heard of is to energy poor to be useful. It is elsewhere or die.
@@miss.g-shun-w Why is that? Our technology is massively above what it was only decades ago. The biggest hurdle in interstellar is if FTL or cryogenic can be achieved. I consider cryogenic a limited option, because you have to power a ship and have it survive hundreds of years. But for saving humanity from inevitable death, you only have to get a handful to a livable planet. Full terraforming will likely be impractical. But either that or a world we can naturally survive on as it is. Enthusiasm handles the rest.
@@icecold9511 Outside of Mars the AUs of even the "closest" supposedly liveable planet is just too massive reach it. Especially when you consider the fact that space is expanding exponentially and we can never ever catch up. Our technology will never be able to overcome that deficit. But that's just one example and I could never do it justice explaining why we may never be an interplanetary species. But there's a video that I'll try to link to this comment that broke it down perfectly. The sheer cost alone was unimaginable....not to mention the political aspect.
@@miss.g-shun-w You don't really know what you're talking about. The expansion of the universe has to do with the increase in distance between gravitationally *unbound* parts. The distance to other planets and stars within our own galaxy, or even within our local group of galaxies is *not* expanding because they are gravitationally bound. Some galaxies are even moving towards us. The distance to other galaxies is still insurmountable, of course, but the expansion of spacetime is irrelevant.
No one ever listens to the guy who says "it can't be done." Personally, I think after we get over the Mars hype, colonizing the atmosphere of Venus with airships will be almost inevitable.
@@farttart597 - Seriously though, you look into how feasible the Venus model sounds, it will blow your mind. It makes the Mars mission look like pure madness, and meanwhile everyone can't stop fixating over Mars. Mars is a hellish $h!tscape: dust storms, cold, horrible view, 6 months of travel, no pressurization. They're talking about making this place into a vacation resort. We don't even have a vacation resort in fricking Antarctica. Venus, you have an AMAZING view, nice tropical weather, no need for pressurization. If they can figure out a way to make an aircraft self-sustaining in that atmosphere, then yeah, you could actually envision a civilian population there.
@@Brakathor Yeah, and if we could make it so that oxygen could float on the carbon dioxide atmosphere below. That would make it breathable. At least in my mind that would work. Mars, even if we did colonize it. It would be so fucken boring to live there. Also, we wouldn't have a trash issue; we just went through that rapper to the incinerator below. I am going to look into it further. Venus is already my favorite planet other than Earth; it is better than lifeless mercury or ever the same Jupiter. This planet has volcanos and a past of some resurfacing events. The only issue I see is getting a craft there in the first place. Maybe just get the resources from some asteroid nearby. Imagine when you go to cook, instead of using an oven, you lower your food in a metal box. I know my ideas are getting outlandish, but it is fun to think about.
@@farttart597 - The idea of colonizing Titan is another awe inspiring idea, but it's simply too far away. Otherwise, it would be quite easy too: possibly easier than Venus. I'm no scientist, but from what I understand, the worst aspects by far are the issue or pressurization, and the thin atmosphere. I forgot that aspect. Mars has almost no atmosphere, so you would have to deal with a substantial amount of radiation too. It really is pure folly. They had a twin live up in space for about a year, and he came back genetically altered to the point that he was no longer identical to his twin.
@@Brakathor Yeah, it is currently impossible to alter any planet significantly. We can even keep this one from heating up to much. I do think we will colonize other planets but in about 200 years. Yet, we will defiantly do that.
O'Neil Cylinders is still a possibility... we should be more optimistic, the fact that we've already been to the moon, built a space station and have several rovers on Mars should be a good indication of how far we can go.
Sure O'Neil cylinder is possible - certainly much more feasible than colonizing Mars. But first humans have to master totally self sustaining ecosphere with zero waste. Once we have functional O'Neil deep space colony, then we create almost unlimited living space for humans between Mars and Venus.
2:30 Geologist here. We are in fact very short on rare earth metals because many elements pretty much all sank to the earths core during its formation. The same thing happened in big asteroids, except they later got all smashed up, leaving bits of their juicy metal cores hanging out in space. These are a fantastic resource. Lots of elements are so rare on earth that industry can't use them because they are so expensive to be impractical. Asteroid mining will happen. However, I agree that this probably won't lead to widespread human colonisation of the solar system. Most of this can be automated, perhaps with a small skeleton crew to deal with hangups (but even that might not be necessary as robotics and Ai develops).
Have you watched the Kurzgesagt video on terraforming Venus? It'd definitely be costly, and isn't likely to start for centuries at least, but it does sound possible and definitely a smaller challenge than interstellar travel.
@@Marvin-dg8vj 100 years is a near magical time line considering it would probably take thousands to even consider thinking that would be a possibility.
Yes and people being able to levitate objects by waving a stick around and shouting "abracadabra" also sounds possible to some people. You see what's "possible" pails in comparison to what's probable.
Venus is the best planet for colonization and exploration. 5/10, not a 1/10. Enough water in atmosphere as vapors to make rocket fuel, lot of C02 to make oxigen. Factory for making goodies from Venus atmosphere. Cianobakteries floating in Venus atmosphere can for couple hundred years completely change atmosphere and reduce temperature.
I do think we may one day establish some research outposts on some of the other bodies in the solar system, but likely not full fledged colonies and certainly not until we come up with a much more efficient and faster travel methods, all of which could take hundreds or even thousands of years. If we even last that long
5:44 - 116 Earth days?! Uh, where did that figure come from? Last time I checked, a Venusian Day was 243 Earth days, even longer than a Venusian year (224 Earth days).
_Also... To intelligent readers (who do 'not’ have a ‘pathological disregard for rationality and reality')_ I recommend researching 'narcissitic personality disorder' (NPD) / 'cluster-B'; and know that they are the 'root of all evil' (especially 'ESFJ/ESTJ-narcissits'; Myers-Briggs reference, look it up)! European 'ESFJ' are the worst personality type, and they are responsible for inventing 'racism' and colonization! It is in their neuro-psychology!! The are extremely 'manipulative' and often use 'looking pretty' to distract others from the witch's mind-games / mind-rape, e.g. gaslighting, playing the victim or damsel in distress, creating 'flying-monkeys', and paying others to attack (or at times kill) someone for her. When caught, she will use her minions as scapegoats. European ESFJ are notorious for this especially in a racist context, e.g. Elliott Till. ISFP (and ESFP) are the most complicit, narcissitic-enablers. ISFP also tend to be 'oblivious-codependants' (look up the definition). SUMMARY: Evil personality: ESFJ (ALL), ESTJ (cluster-b) [Secretly] Evil and narcissit-friendly gunts/flying-monkey: ISFP (ALL), ESFP (ALL). ☝️ALL of them are secretly emotionally-disturbed, hence their need to create conflict (and at other people's expense, truly evil). Spread the word! Thank you. PS: ESFJ are Amber Heard behind the public mask. ___________ #Save_Soil
@@Human_01 OK. That was a bit of non sequitur, but I'll play along. First off, there is little to no scientific backing of the Briggs Myers personality "test". Many people taking it multiple times arrive at different results sometimes only days apart. Oftentimes results can be significantly swayed by the mood you happen to be in that day. It was created in the late 19th century and refined circa 1945 by a mother/daughter duo with no academic training or qualification in psychology, sociology or otherwise. So your claim that any BMPT results are remotely definitive in gauging anyone is dubious and misinformed. Saying that all people of a certain BMPT "type" are indicative of pathological behavior especially. It comes across heavyhanded and certainly eludes to a cognitive bias and seems to reflect a clear agenda based approach. Secondly I find it rather ironic how you're using a Dunning-Kruger fueled narcissistic and racist diatribe to attempt to call out a whole continent worth of people as narcissistic racists. It smacks of someone that read some politically motivated opinion piece and, feeling congruent to it, try to sell it as facts. You cite no actual peer reviewed studies, most likely have no qualifications in any applicable field and make largely stereotyped blanket statements about whole racial groups. Then you follow it all up with the classic credo of the biased and uninformed conspiracist, "Look it up!". Do better.
@@glen4326 idk. Are there cows in space? Can astronauts ummm naut the astro without hamburgers and leather wingtips? Livestock was cultivated as an efficient solution to obstacles. New obstacles require novel solutions. Having a hammer doesn't make everything a nail.
if anything he’s being a bit overly optimistic with the timeline of some robotic missions. nobody wishes it were otherwise more than i do, but he’s absolutely correct. the only thing i truly disagree with is the idea that maybe 50 years from now his pessimism will be laughable. this topic is not analogous to manned flight. we know with mathematical certainty that there will never be FTL travel, and that no aliens ever have or ever will visit our solar system. it’s heartbreaking but true
@@l21n18 Because we don't see interstellar empires. With FTL they don't have to be dense and therefore we can miss them. Without FTL interstellar flight is privilege of large and old civilizations. But it seems, that none such exists at least in our part of galaxy.
@@l21n18 As we don't see distortions of spectrums of stars with peak in low infrared. In non-FTL universe any old civilization should Dyson-swarm its sun considerably, if not completely. And a species with similar life-cycle to us should do it within couple of millennia . Which in turn is blink of an eye in cosmic time scale.
Finally, someone that makes sense. I say forget colonies on other planets, forget mining space that's ridiculous. The only exception to this would be to do some of these things on the moon. Use probes robots and telescopes only it would be faster cheaper safer and a heck of a lot smarter. And why don't we build the biggest telescope ever on the dark side of the Moon some day? Like the James Webb or Kepler but ten or twenty or 100 times as big.
I would give Titan a 5 out of 10, but I agree with every other scale. You only need air and a jacket, not a space suit. If you had a wing suit you could fly on Titan too due to the low gravity. Thanks for your content.
The drive to create new ideas, tech and overall solutions comes from need. Hence this is why colonizing seems so impossible. Its scientific curiosity driving it not need.
Humans are designed for 1 Earth G Without this , kidneys and liver stop working in any low G environment plus loss of muscle mass in heart over a few months even with extreme work outs . So low G places are scientist brief play grounds / hunting retreats Without robotic mining , even the asteroids are unusable For a colony you will need roughly 1 G gravity for humans , that means cloud cities on Venus , Jupiter , Saturn and / or Uranus . A spinning space station or O'Neil cylinder a much cheaper and realistic for options for colonization and mining
The colonization potential for Venus here is underestimated. Because of the thick atmosphere and Earth-like pressures in the upper altitudes aerostat habitats and possibly later floating cities would have good things going for them. There is good amount of scientific work that can occur on a base like that.
Research posts, maybe. Cities? I doubt it. The resources on the surface are not accessible so everything has to be shipped in from elsewhere..Really you're just wasting resources into a gravity well for no tangible benefit.
@@Burt1038 There's plenty of energy available and a huge balloon full of breathable air will float at one Earth atmosphere. A biosphere can be set up. Surrounding CO2 can be split into oxygen and carbon; and surrounding sulphuric acid can be split into water, oxygen, and sulphur. Specialized machinery can explore and mine the surface and can be pulled up, either from the city itself or by tethered submarine-like vehicles floating above the machinery. We know little about what's available on Venus. It may be well worth our while.
Why would we dream of living in pressurized, air conditioned environments? Such a good question. We're trying to do that without leaving Earth, though, so maybe for some people the idea of stepping outside being met with immediate death is a feature, not a flaw.
Humanoid robots who can gain consciousness and fix themselves while supervising machines that can build colonies will represent Earth. How silly to believe people with our tiny lifespan could explore space. However, human’s contribution can be to build the robots that become a million times smarter than us.
I think you underestimate your species, my friend. I don't think it'll happen in our lifetimes, but I do see humanity reaching out into the stars eventually.
Yeah... No. There are places on earth we can't colonize and we have water, air and easy access to supplies here. I don't think you grasp how far apart the planets actually are, never mind how inhospitable they are. The moon is right around the corner (only a handful of days away) and nothing... We are still hanging out in high atmosphere pretending it is space and that we aren't "falling" to stay in "orbit".
@@t0neg0d We can colonize any place on Earth actually. With Nuclear Fisson + Desalination, there's no such thing as an inhospitable place on Earth. There are great challenges to colonizing space, but they all have a myriad of candidate solutions. Just because baseline biological humans have difficulty with a colonization effort does not mean that future humans with post-biological vessels will. Biology is overated anyhow.
@@t0neg0d right, humans could never survive on the moon... oh wait they did and I watched them on TV live over half a century ago. Moon colony is being planned and the first rocket in that program launched days ago, maybe you missed it.
@@t0neg0d I’m well aware of how far away everything is, thank you. Need I remind you that 100 years ago if you told people we would have tiny portable computers in our pockets or that we could fly around the Earth whenever we wanted, they’d have had a hard time believing that too. You never know what technological breakthroughs are in humanity’s future. Just because something isn’t possible or feasible now, doesn’t mean it won’t ever be.
In my humble opinion, I feel this video presents a very short sighted view. It does not account for changing technology and gets some of its facts wrong (a day on Mercury is close to 58 Earth days, not 88 - 88 days is a YEAR on Mercury). Here's how and why we likely WILL colonize the solar system... First, the HOW... So far, the only way to Earth orbit (and space) is chemical rockets which even with efficiencies and cost reductions brought about by Musk's SpaceX (and possibly other private companies), remain inefficient and costly. A hybrid rocket or scramjet/rocket pair could get us to Earth orbit very cheaply. Future ion engines with ability to give a constant 1g acceleration/deceleration will reduce planetary transit times for humans from months and years to just days or weeks. As to the so called "expense" of mining asteroids, the recovered ores can be put in orbits that reach Earth by solar powered (or nuclear powered) magnetic launch rails (in place of rockets) Very cheap!...Some asteroids carry rare metals worth more than gold per pound making mining and transport extremely economical AND many earth bound mines of these rare metals is extremely bad for Earth's environment whereas the space based mining operations have no negative environmental impacts. Another reason for colonizing space will be for the building of space based orbiting solar panels which can be made from materials on the Moon and/or materials from asteroid mining. However the MAJOR thing missed is "colonizing the solar system" does NOT need a "planet" or other body...space based orbiting space stations...cities in space could provide the extra 'living space' we may wish without needing to descend to a planet. Tourism, space mining and (solar powered) energy are the economies that will drive space settlement (at a minimum).
we will never destroy the earth.... we can only make it unlivable for us....... think about it. .... the planet has been through worse than humans and will continue to be around for a very long time .
I agree. Colonizing outside our solar system is near impossible and not practical. Within our solar system it is still extremely limited and costly. Better off focusing on saving this planet.
When i was a lad in the 70s, I read in an astronomy book by a professor in the field. who asserted with absolute certainty that we would NEVER be able to detect planets around other stars, much less do something completely fanciful like image them. Also, at the same time, other experts at the same time were asserting that we would completely run out of oil in the early 21st century. It turns out they were both right--using limited technological assumptions that were available to them at the time. But technology advanced over the decades in ways they couldn't foresee. Current computers and imaging technology allows both the remote detection of exoplants, and the imaging of some select ones. Improved drilling technology allowed for exploitation of oil reserves in places thought inaccessible, like the deep ocean floor and the arctic. To assert that something can NEVER be is hugely short-sighted. You don't know, and will never be able to fully predict, what might motivate and enable people to colonize other worlds. You can certainly opine on why you might think it's a bad idea. But to say it can never happen is just plain false.
Agree - well said. Just one correction - there aren't actually any images of exoplanets - they are always artist impressions. Not even the new James Webb Telescope is capable of seeing an exoplanet. That doesn't mean it might not be possible one day with say an array of space telescopes.
Only a limited mind can affirm that. A little more than 100 years ago man though it was impossible to flight. Today we have gone to the moon, mats and even outside of the solar system. What it seems Impossible today will sure be possible one day if we as a race learn how to have peace, respect one another and preserve the only planet we now have .
Today we haven't gone to the moon. That was 50 years ago. Since then where have we gone? Technological advancement and human lust for exploration is not what it once was.
@@louisxix3271 we are still in the the “today” I mentioned. It’s not true that technological advancement is not as it was. We haven’t gone back to the moon yet, but we have sent human technology to mars and beyond. It all depends in the angle you look at
@@marcusdocarmo The way I see it, human civilisation is declining. Wars abound. We now worry more about securing a stable flow of electricity than expanding man's horizons in space. Poverty still dominates the globe. 3rd world countries are responsible for almost all of humanity's demographic growth. In 10, 20 years, we will still be talking about building a moon base, stepping foot on mars. But I doubt these events will occur in the next 100 years unfortunately.
@@louisxix3271 Yes. it’s true. We are full of problems and can’t see a clear path to a solution to stop wars, poverty, political extremisms, etc, etc…..Unfortunately, the same money that can help science can also destroy it depending on interests. We are still burning fuel to move our cars and machines even though electric cars are in the market because the oil industry funds politicians all over the world. I hope that If we don’t destroy ourselves in a couple of years (which is very possible), we learn from our mistakes and look forward to a better future. Let's see….
@@louisxix3271 we live in the most peaceful time in human history... what are you yapping about.... read a book ....... life if better now than any time in history no matter where you live.
I have to agree with you. The problem is, so many of us have grown up with sci-fi movies and series and it has become almost a religious belief that we'll one day whizz around space. But it IS only sci-fi.
Every new invention was insanely expensive, and it becomes less expensive over time, even if in small amounts by the time we're old af, progress and innovation goes on.
What I imagine as the second best (and safest) alternative to being on an alien world would be to have a sophisticated technology that could probe the planet's terrain and send its sound and holographic images back to an IMAX-type theater here on earth. The theater would be configured to approximate the experience of being there. Perhaps it could even integrate into a next-generation Disney Cosmosland.
Yup, NASA moon landings sorta did that, sometimes for a few tens of minutes, with the rover rides and such. If it was holographic that would have been cool too, but no tech for that in the 60-70's. But the Live TV was pretty cool as I watched as a kid then!! :D
Very logical predictions based on our current understanding of science and technology, I have a feeling that these predictions will be valid for centuries at least...
For what purpose? Why should we devote enormous resources to put people way out in the solar system? What is it that they can do there that they cannot do here or in LEO?
@@gipgap4 if they are big enough, you can make parks inside them similar to what we have on earth. Plus, the earth’s population may grow so much that the cost of living will be cheaper off planet.
Agree 100%! All the wild theorizing leaves out so many mundane little things that makes human life possible. We're still struggling to made our wonderful Earth totally livable: Sahara, Antartica, Siberia, Australian interior, Gobi, etc.. So, forget about other planets.
I am Completely unconvinced! Anything can be done if you try hard enough. The resources in space are mostly valuable for use IN space. You can use the metals, and water, to build and supply the bases and ships you need. Instead of building them on earth, and shooting them up into space. Reasons to go into space AND develop the technology. 1. Discovery 2. Science 3. Adventure 4. Awe 5. Raw materials without an envirment to ruin. 6. A safe place to do dangerous research. 7. Amazing place to do Rest and Relaxation. 8. Because its there. 9. If we stay here, looking inward, we will destroy ourselves. Humans Demand challenges, Adventure, and expansion. Empires that stagnated, self destructed, ir were conquered by the next empire. 1. The "its too hard" excuse would mean we would NEVER have the trans Atlantic cable, Satelite comunication, light weight materials, high thrust engines, high speed flight, nuclear powered submarines, hell even the light bulb would NOT exist if Edison did not try over 10,000 different ways of making it work. Also we tried building underwater envirments. Nobody lived there. Once we begin building infrastructure, the cost and difficulty will be reduced by orders if magnitude. If Colunbus did not have to bring Everything with him, his trip would have been easier. Your Argument, is mind boggling short sighted. All that is needed is the will to build the infrastructure.
Drink koolaid too much? That's what billions of humans have said in the past 100,000, 200,000 years. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE! Yet all of them are dead. Positive thinking will only get you so far. Life is not some comic book where superhero comes to rescue. BTW where are those personal nuclear reactors? Cheap and practical flying cars? Modern miracle medicine extending people's lives to hundreds or thousands of years? Intelligent humanoid robot assistants like those in anime? Easy to think of it, but had to bring into reality.
Right all of these were impossible once. 1. Radio 2. Aircraft of any kind 3. Glass in pieces larger than a baseball. 4. Recording sound 5. Photography 6. Television 7. Faster than sound flight 8. Color LCD screens 9. Guided missiles 10. Modern Steal 11. Any bridge more than 100 feet long. 12. Nuclear power of any kind 13. Submarines 14. Ships built with steal 15. Clocks that can work on a ship or boat. 16. Voice recognition 17. Wireless ANYTHING 18. Precision machinery 19. Large scale.production of goods. 20. Roman concrete, which still lasts longer than modern contcrete. 21. Electricity 22. Electric light 23. Synthetic materials 24. The printing press. Etc.
"nobody goes to live in the Australian desert"... 🤣 where do you think all the expanding Australian CITIES came from??? Or others like Dubai, or northern places like Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Norway? You vastly underestimate human determination and future technologies.
Top scientists use to say that the earth was in the center of the solar system, and people use to think that the speed of sound was unreachable, People also sue to say that living on the ocean floor was impossible, Just because it is impractable now and too costly now does not mean that will be true in 50 to 100 years.
All of those things came from a lack of understanding. Here we clearly understand the challenges as we've actually looked in to them Colonizing outside of earth is a pipe dream
@@Korkzorz today it is a pipe dream. But 50 years or more who know what will be possible. We already have better ships and spacesuits then what we had even 20 years ago. And humans being who we are will always improve and strive for more.
@@Korkzorz All of those things came from a lack of understanding from people *who were completely convinced they understood*. There were top scientists at the end of the 19th century who were convinced that our understanding of physics was complete (within 20 years, we would have general relativity and quantum mechanics), and that humankind would never fly (the Wright brothers achieved it in a decade). Would they dismiss the concept of a man walking on the moon within a century as fantasy? Would they be able to imagine what we would achieve in space flight (robotic exploration and space telescopes), and combined with our new models of physics, what detail we would learn about the universe and its origins? Our understanding now is further advanced from them as they were from the geocentric model. The flaw in this video seems to me to be the assumption of at best roughly linear advancement in technology (therefore making assumptions about the difficulty of the task based on the present day technical barriers) combined with a static, present-day set of motivations to try (based on our current needs and resources). We are not good at thinking exponentially. In the last 200 years, our population has increased 10 times the amount it grew in the 12000 years before it. Our way of life changed slowly over that 12000 years since the agricultural revolution, but our industrial revolution means it changes more than that by each generation. We went from whole civilisations not recording their history, to writing 3500 years ago, to the printing press 600 years ago, to the internet in the last 30 years. We could walk for 200,000 years, rode horses for 6000, built trains and cars for 200, and now we can go to space on rockets in the last 50. Yet we think the next generation will be like us. Factor into account exponential change into account (both in our technology capability and humanity's circumstances) and we could be way of the mark here in our predictions for the future.
@@rochedl Don't forget the issues in space, gravity, distance, radiation, resources, comfort, if we ever colonize other planets it will be when we fix all this issues. Maybe in 1000-10000 years. Don't forget, to terraform it will take tens of thousands to millions of years to achieve with current tech, and with advance tech thousands of years. The best will have at this worlds I'm the next 1000 years will be small outpost. Space isn't as easy or fast to progress as in earth. It will take thousands of years to even be able to live in this worlds for extended time, and only in control living spaces.
It's more likely people will wanna live IN SPACE and then at that point the resources around the solar system would be super cheap to transport between space stations.
Yes, it would be vastly more practical and cost effective to learn how to live in the vast unusable areas of earth. The Sahara or Australian or Arabian deserts or the Arctic or Antarctic tundra offer millions of empty square miles that would be vastly easier to utilize. They have air. They have terrestrial temperatures. They are not being bombarded with heavy radiation. They are not isolated by millions of miles of empty space. It doesn't cost billions or trillions of dollars to get there.
The other reality check is that we have not managed to maintain a truly self sufficent colony in Antarctica. Our atempts to build closed biospheres elsewhere have also not yet being successful. Meaning we still don't have the life support technology to pull space. colonisation off.
The thing that convinced me we'll never colonize Mars is the long-term effects of low gravity on human health. Humans cannot live long term in a gravity field as low as Mars' and remain healthy. That means stays on Mars must remain relatively short and there will never be permanent colonists, just staff that returns to Earth after a few.years assignment on Mars. The same problem will occur on every other body in the solar system except the gas giants (where the gravity problem makes even visiting the surface impossible), and Venus, where the surface is not really practical - only aerostatic.stations in the.atmosphere. There is also the problem of radiation. Except for.the gas giants, only the Earth has a magnetic field strong enough to shield humans from solar flares. Only underground colonies would be practical, but the only places underground colonies would be possible have already been eliminated from consideration because humans cannot survive long term in their weak gravity. Maybe some medical or technological breakthrough will change this, but right now, the only place in the solar system humans can successfully colonize would be earth.
We only know the effects of micro gravity or zero g but we don't actually know the affects of less gravity but there are engineering methods around it things like tracked centrifuges which combine centrifugal force and gravity to simulate normal gravity, Venus is in fact easier to colonize than Mars because of the dense atmosphere protects against radiation and is so dense that a balloon filled normal earth air would float and at the height the Ballon the temperature will around earth normal. I would looking up Isaac arthur on TH-cam his videos go into more detail
In my opinion, the best reason, whether or not it is feasible, to colonize other worlds is that is lessens the chance that one natural event could wipe out our species entirely.
Yes. It’s absolutely a fundamental requirement that we establish a permanent presence on another planet at some point. Doesn’t necessarily have to be this year or next year or even in a hundred years, but it has to be something we do if we’re serious about not going extinct.
One thing I disagree with that was stated in the video. It declared categorically that we will not discover life in the outer solar system. While it may be unlikely, we won't know for certain until we get there.
@@relykSish The interesting thing I heard once (it was an FBI agent talking about UFOs) is that you can never prove a negative. We may never find evidence of alien life. Yet, that still doesn't prove it isn't out there.
@@katherinestives940 For 500 years man has been exploring space scientifically, during which time we have run 10,000 tests for alien life, and without exception, every single one of them has returned an absolute negative. Any belief in alien life beyond Earth's influence is faith-based belief.
@@relykSish I have never seen one million dollars. This does not automatically mean it does not exist. Again, I am not saying there is or is not. What I am saying is that you can not prove it does not exist. I believe it was Einstein who stated that in science, you have to be right every time. You only have to be wrong once.
@@katherinestives940 I can, and we have. With every single test ever run, in the search for alien life, we have without any shadow of a doubt, decided that absolutely no alien life has ever been detected. Any further discussion on this subject would clearly be toward convincing you jesus is not on that cross.
I would agree about colonization, at least in the short term. I do think when (and if) we make progress in the capability of interplanetary space travel scientific bases will happen in both the inner and outer Solar System. We are a long way from the capability of interstellar travel if it is even possible. I think the development of AI will be a game changer though. Machines don't need the life support of living beings and if they don't replace us will be the natural for interstellar travel but I think that is a ways down the road!
Still can’t change physics. It will be out of reach for humans period. And no going to mars for 3 people be colonization. The resources needed will be astronomical. A few people does not make a space fairing race a reality.
I disagree for a whole host of reasons. I'm in the camp with the likes Isaac Arthur and John Michael Gaudier. It will take time. It will be hard. There will be failures and loss of life. But our societies without a shared dream falter. Not everybody needs to share the dream, only a small percentage. But a small percentage is all we need to keep the dream alive and make progress towards the goal.
But that dream requires money, and resourses to accomplish. And that is the point being made. Elon Musk might inspire people to fund a mission to Mars. And after they spend 5 times more than Elon predicted, and see what little inspiration it invokes in the public mindset, much less what little is gained having done so. Those money's and resources will likely dry up quickly. And this is a life colonization dreamer talking.
Just look at how quickly the funding dropped out of the Apollo program once the political goal of beating the Russians to the moon was achieved. Regular people aren't inspired by scientific goals. And only fear motivated them to achieve the political goal. What sort of jolly happy Santa Claus goal do you think is going to inspire people to invest trillions to quadrillions of dollar's(cause that's what it will cost) to ferry fragile little furless monkeys across the vastness of space(just in this solar system) to colonize completely inhospitable locations?
It would cost us less, to politically unite ourselves to the goal of no longer fighting wars, or over fishing, or wasting soil on profit based farming, and learning to conserve or efficiently use what resourses we have here, on Earth. Not one person you've met even gives a third of a remote turd about the long term survivability of life on this planet. The only true reason for colonization. To spread life onto other planet's, and ensure the survival of life in the universe for as long as is possible.
I agree to a point. I do think we'll establish small bases on the moon and Mars (and perhaps one day Titan), but our history of space travel is that we bail on it as soon as it gets too expensive, and actually colonizing these places would be monumentally expensive. That being said, I think that there will ultimately be massive, planet scale colonies on Mars and other places, but not human colonies. My prediction is that Earth will be for the humans, and the other planets will be colonized by AI. Hopefully they'll see that as a better option than killing us lol!
nope, he didn't fully consider the biological limitations, which are not surmuntable by technoogy, unless it's humanity going digital and becoming machines. otherwise people on mars would have life expentancy of maximum 20 years, and even if they evolved (imagine the sacrifice for generations) to be able to live there, then they wouldn't be able to go back to live on earth or to live on any other planet, because it would require to adapt again to the condition of an alien world.
Preparation for human colonization could be done by machines, robot and AI with limited human personnel in situ. Artificial environment will be a good surrogate of earth, they are already existing and experiencing long term settlement.
I agree. If it’s likely we still got a long way to go. Space travel wont be big until it’s profitable but it may never get to that point because of cost
there are already some humans with lots of money who wanne pay millions and even more just for trips around the moon or to the iss if we have more efficient/reliable transportation methods and the infrastructur beeing able to visit interesting places there will be a market for that imho the drop in mass to orbit cost will have a lot of impact in the future missions to space
Crossing the Atlantic and flying in the air were also thought impossible, not very long ago in the scheme of things. The challenges seem insurmountable for sure, but outright dismissing them as such would indeed be the insurmountable obstacle.
In fact, it take millenias to did so. Even with the viking knowledge we never had the enough tech to send a strong fleet with enough resourses to make colonies until 1500
@@zaatas Is about industrial projection not about sending people to survive in another land. If we send some dragon ball capsules to another world, people just die in there. We need to send an (many) autonomous fleet in wich one we have the resources to survive in this land against the environment. Europeans did it sending cows, horses, vegetables and industrial production to extract gold, iron, copper, wood and all the stuff to build ships, castles, and all the stuff.
@@TheKarofaar i wasn't talking about space travel, i was just refuting the point you made about ocean travel like you needed some high society and industry to cross an ocean successfully. You don't. People were ocean hopping way before the Vikings and the 1500s my dude. China had the industry and technology to start sending ships in the manner you are speaking of before that date as well. Just didn't have the will or desire to.
If you look at what we can do with our current technology and thinking, no, we can't colonize the system. Then again, 1000 years ago humans could only imagine of flying like a bird. Given the technology and thinking then, an intelligent, logical thinking person could never conceive of humans flying like we do today. The biggest limitation is thinking we are at the peak of technology and thinking.
we fly , yet its nothing like a bird.... thats your mistake..... we will achieve new technology someday and it will be nothing that we think is possible today.... atleast i hope so
I think that life is very prevalent in the galaxy. I remember a time not that long ago when scientists thought liquid water was rare in the Solar System. Now, we are fairly certain it is very common throughout the Solar System. I think the same is true of life.
@@bassmanjr100 My proof? That is your entire argument. Give me your proof life doesn’t exist in a galaxy full of stars (estimated at 100 to 400 billion by a scientist in the European Space Agency). The same scientists state that the Milky Way has at minimum at least as many planets as stars in the Milky Way. In her office on the 17th floor of MIT’s Building 54, Sara Seager is about as close to space as you can get in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Kepler’s answer was unequivocal. There are more planets than there are stars, and at least a quarter are Earth-size planets in their star’s so-called habitable zone, where conditions are neither too hot nor too cold for life. With a minimum of 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, that means there are at least 25 billion places where life could conceivably take hold in our galaxy alone-and our galaxy is one among trillions. Do I know for certain? No! I said that in my original comment when I said I think. Did I say intelligent life in my comment? No! However, I certainly hope the answer is yes. Based upon my reading about a subject that interests me, I think life forming in the right environment is very common. My opinion! If I had absolute proof, I wouldn’t be wasting my time responding to you because I would be the most sought after person on the planet because everyone would want to hear my evidence.
Thank you......reality is always good. However, given a coupla thousand more years, O'Neill Cylinders may be the way to the future. Planets, especially “terraformed” planets, not so much.
These are reasons why we SHOULDN’T colonize the Solar system, but we still might try like you said. It won’t be exactly how we want. For example, we might be active in certain parts but colonizing is on the extreme end.
I agree. There’s nowhere else to go. Terraforming is wildly expensive and impractical and space travel is much slower and more difficult than people think. We’re better off focusing on taking care of the planet we have.
imho we have little control about the caring of the planet stuff there actually is very little "we" left who knows when one dictatorship goes crazy and starts nuking us all away? and thats only one possibility there is no working together with stopping the climate change also maybe its better to just go somewhere else and build something new at least then there will be something left after we all killed ourself here or we would start to respect our homeworld after seeing how unique and beautifull it actually is
@@Sippi81 There’s nowhere else to go. Mars’ core is dead; the planet has no magnetosphere and not much atmosphere to protect against radiation. There is no terraforming a planet that lacks the gravity to keep an atmosphere. It might be possible to terraform Venus… over the course of a few thousand years. Where else is there to go? Titan? The Moon? There is no way to shield spacecraft from cosmic rays; astronauts in the ISS receive much more radiation than we do on the ground, despite being within Earth’s magnetosphere. There is no such thing as interstellar travel, full stop.
I think this is the most likely scenario. You can say all you want about future technology, but given the current and inevitable decline of all the most advanced societies around the world, it would not be surprising to suddenly wake up one day a hundred years from now and discover we're back to horse and buggy transportation, if we're lucky. Worst case scenario, we're all dead and the Earth is a burnt out cinder. Either way, none of us alive today will be around to see it, so it's silly to argue about it.
I think most interplanetary and interstellar colonization is way too optimistic in most science videos this one is going a bit too far the other way with saying "never". It does seem like an insurmountable challenge to create permanent self-sufficient colonies away from earth I would never say "never". One possibility thats rarely mentioned is bioengineering plants, animals, and even humans to tolerate a different environment.
I'm sure at one point in time air travel was considered impossible. Nobody says colonizing other worlds would be easy, but if we don't annihilate ourselves first, we should be on track to have the technology to do it successfully some day.
humans cant kill all humans.... someone will survive......but colonizing other worlds will take a tremendous breakthrough in technology that we dont currently posses.
I love science fiction. Right now I'm deep into watching the Orville. But I can't say the more I learn about space the more I cringe when almost every movie does almost anything that has to do with space. Unfortunately science fiction has planted the idea in many people's minds that one day it'll be possible to just zip around to all the planets in the universe. And in most of these science fiction Endeavors everybody can breathe the same air on every planet.
Warp drive has a scientific basis. The tecnology is beyond us at present but physics is on our side. When Jules Verne wrote "From the Earth to the Moon" it was SciFi. It isn't SciFi anymore.
@MrComfyFrog. Site S4 is a legit place ..Area S4 is not. However, warp fields are being created at the sub atomic level. Baby steps for warl fields and fussion reactors. Thats how science and engineering work.
@@brigittedarcel1498warp drive is still scifi. The scientific hypothesis for it existing in real life requires us discovering a variety of previously unimagined exotic matter,
In 1860s I think it was Jules Verne who said: in 100 years we will have cities on the moon. In 1949 the novel Red Planet talked about how in the near future humans will colonise Mars. It’s been 74 years and we’re still waiting
I agree; anyone that understands in-system distances, and the compositions of its planets would “see” it. Our “civilization” will not stand long enough to develop the means to humanly travel much faster than we’ve achieved thus far.
@@yungpo9853 If “we” last another 100 years, would be remarkable. We’ll destroy this paradise planet before we achieve anything close to speed of light. Beyond Mars it’s gaseous planets with huge gravitanional wells, no chance we’ll move out of Earth. At best maybe put some people in the surface of Mars but “colonizing” it, pipe dream.
With Franklin Chang Diaz making the vasimr plasma drive that can get to mars in about 30 to 40 days instead of conventional rocket power taking 6 months to get there, just think of the advances we could make in a short period of time with regards to speed.
@@douglasdepirro8364 Yes, getting out to the gravity well of earth will always require brute strength but after that the long-distance missions can be achieved shortly with high tech nuclear and other propulsion systems interplanetary vehicles. Some of which could be entirely manufactured in space, next to a space station, like in the old movie "Conquest of Space".
@@davidlancaster4476 I said it in another comment so I’ll just copy and paste that comment here: You make a lot of incorrect assumptions about the progress of technology to come to these conclusions. It’s absolutely unreasonable to assume that space travel will never get any cheaper than it is right now, especially with SpaceX developing reusable rockets. The same way that the advancement of sea faring ships in the early 15,000s eventually made crossing the ocean cheap enough that the colonization of the new world became a profitable endeavor. Also there is nothing inherently wrong about humans being greedy in space, in fact it’s the perfect place to allow our greed to run wild since there is an unlimited amount of resources that we could never hope to fully use up. There is also so much space to move into, that we will almost certainly not be fighting over territory. And last but not least, unlike the colonization of the new world which killed millions of natives in the process, there is no one out there for us to harm. The colonization of our solar system is an inevitable thing that will happen, and the benefits it will bring to us and our planet are hard to fathom right now
@@andrewparker318 the last time man went anywhere was in 1972 to the moon. where have we been since then ? nowhere ! how long do you think it would take to build a big enough space-ship to take a viable number of people to a new planet ? there are only 33 stars within a 12.5 light year distance of earth and they are not in a line after each other they are scattered all over the visible sky. so in reality, the first being 4.22 light years away, would be our first port of call, after that we are snookered, we either carry on to the next which could be another 5 light years away or double back to the next. even if we travelled as fast as the helios space probe (to the sun-157000 mph) it would take 19,000 years to get to the closest at alpha centauri with no chance of a rescue attempt, even if, by the time we had built that ship we could travel at 5 times the speed of the helios probe it would still take us 3-4000 years and still not know weather it is suitable. the distances are too great and the time lines not practical, it took 10 years for new horizons to get to pluto. we ain't going nowhere. sci-fi films made in hollywood are not to be taken seriously, fiction !!!
Agree on the fact that no other planet or exoplanet humanity has studied, sent probes, telescopes...is anything like our Earth. Temperatures, gravity, atmosphere, composition...I can't see us setting up colonies anywhere but here for the foreseeable future. We don't need to look for extraterrestrial lifeforms. Only curiosity is the driver. IMO all intelligent life is so far away from each other they'll never know the others that may exist. The universe is immense. Even getting to the next star system 4.2 light years away would take over 73,000 years each way with our fastest probes
Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, etc... (Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public 😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve future contents. A big thank you from all of us.
I remember this guy's ancestor from way back. He said we'd never tame fire or leave the cave.
🤣
Also remember that time when they say we could never fly yeah.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤦🏻♂️
His ancestors didn’t use physics, mathematics, computer simulations etc to reach their decisions. He has highlighted some very real challenges. Funding is going to be a massive issue. No one is going to want to pay for these missions.
@@Anonymous-md2qp i’ll tell you one thing, war and survival is a real motivator.
@@freedomdude5420 They are huge motivators for sure. Whatever happens, it won’t be within our lifetimes.
Humans have only ventured into space for the past 60 years or so. Give "us" another 1000 years and who knows what may happen? In the near term, I can easily see the moon becoming much like the current ISS ... that is, a permanently manned outpost that grows in size and complexity over time.
Sure. Lots of cartoons and cgis to prove we ve been in space. Why not?
With what we humans have allowed to become acceptable and the decadence of society, do you really think humanity will be allowed to continue down this spiral much longer??
@@cryharder1877 what exactly did humans allow to make acceptable in society which makes you so pessimistic?
@@hey0173 take a day off & find out
@@cryharder1877 read my question again
I asked what did humans make acceptable which makes YOU so pessimistic
the answer to this question is subjective so you need to provide an answer.
Colonizing Antarctica, the oceans surface and the deep sea on earth is so much easier than colonizing any planet or moon in our solar system and yet we don’t do that either because it’s either too expensive or nobody wants live permanently inside a station. And now imagine living underground because of a lack of a magnetic field or always having to wear a space suit once you step outside. And even mining operations don’t make any sense as it’s just too expensive and a lot cheaper to dig on good old earth.
It's easier in a technical kind of way, not so much politically. Antarctica is hugely contested due to the suspected resources there, anyone trying to create a permanent national settlement there and thus establish possession of it(possession is 9/10 of the law as they say) better be willing to bleed for it.
D-oh you said it first. You didn't mention Venus, (the atmosphere not the surface) and that it would be much easier to colonize than Mars, (and even the Moon in a lot of ways) tho' so I won't delete my comment. Venus also has the advantage of virtually unlimited energy. That's huge! Can't have that on Mars.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Its more about where's the economic gain? As space becomes cheaper to travel to it will make the commercialization of it much easier. Once mining ops and research stations become a thing in space then you'll build places for people live. A lot of the towns in the western US started as mining towns.
Pretty sure you wouldn't want our only immediately habitable world covered with more massive quarries and factories. You'd want that shit in space so you don't end up with a warhammer 40k forge world.
True now. What about 27 thousand years from now? There are a thousand million in each billion.
What about 2 million 600 thousand years from now?
This video doesn't adequately count for time
People easily forget that "never" is an infinite amount of time.
For a foreseeable future I think he's right.
@@fernandobernardo6324 If you're just looking at the next century it's probably far to say it ain't happening but technology moves forward and nudges things from outlandish to possible. It's difficult to imagine humanity reaching the fusion age and not casting itself across the solar system shortly there after. Most of the reasoning used in the video is to the order of "You can just get stuff easier on earth" and in broad strokes that's true but he glosses over the idea that if it ever does become technically and practically possible to establish a self sustaining colony off Earth then people will go because now there is a chance for them to set up something new and stake their own claim.....people will take that offer.
@@austinduke8876 Sure anything is hypothetically possible on a long enough timescale, but then again possible and probable are two words with different meanings for a reason.
yes, i can agree with many of the guy saying except that "never" part
We can't know the future indeed
@@fernandobernardo6324 he literally said "will never" tho
"I can't imagine anyone would want to live there." There is the main problem with this video. Sorry, I spent my childhood dreaming of living on the Moon, and if the opportunity to live the rest of my life there, I would jump at the opportunity. I am not the only one.
The script also said about Mars that eventually no one would want to live there anymore than living in the Australian desert. This is such an ignorant statement, because it shows total ignorance of the large numbers of people who live in the Australian desert. There are many towns, and plenty of people love the isolation and the beauty of desolate landscapes. Most interesting is Coober Pedy, a desert town, where people live underground to escape the desert heat, and water has to be extracted from deep underground, and so full of minerals that it is essentially poisonous that it has to be purified by an expensive osmosis process, and every liter is treated like gold.
There is also a town in Antarctica called Villa Las Estrellas administered by Chile, and babies have been born there. There is the huge American base at the South Pole, and one of the Australian Antarctic bases has a brewery brewing Antarctic beer. Humans have a proven record of wanting to live in the most inhospitable places on Earth, and somehow making it work. Just because the channel owner here wants to live where he can have a nice life with all the comforts, he ignores the millions of us who love adventure and going to dangerous places. There are plenty of people who love risking all. These are the people who will colonize the Solar System.
The Australian deserts were initially found by scientific expeditions. It was science that took Captain Cook to the Pacific. Adventurers followed, politics and conquest took advantage, poor people wanting to find gold, and freedom from oppressive governments were happy to endure hardships. This is how a new country grew. The Moon and Mars will take longer, but the same human drives will be at work, finding ways to make it happen, despite the unsuitability of humans for many of these places. We will do it because we are inventors who like to solve problems. Science starts the process of colonization, but normal human desires will drive the rest.
Sign me up, I want to go.
You'd be living underground on pretty much every world though, venturing outside only for short periods due to radiation. We won't be living out of our home world long without space colonies.
@@caesarsalad1170 and what's your point?
@@caesarsalad1170 doesn't matter. Sign me up.
And that's not even taking into account those people who just flat out hate other people and would see this as the ultimate way to get away from them.
Don't forget your thermal straight jacket.
1900s, somewhere in the British countryside.
"A human will never learn to fly faster than the wind, and transport cargo through the air! It will always be just a dream!"
But you can also find quotes declaring that huge amounts of our food will be grown under the ocean. And artificial hearts will be used by millions to live normal daily lives. Beware overzealousness.
We were inspired by birds and knew how to use wind. Not much of a big deal when you consider space
@@elitecoder955 birds taught us how to fly in the air. but they didn't teach us how to fly faster than the wind, or faster than the birds
@@ТарасМакаренко-ф3ш I believe elitecoder's point was that we were doing what animals had previously done. We watched and learned from birds for centuries before we developed powered flight. And the principle of flight is simple physics.
Terraforming Mars would take centuries of consecutive support from the political and financial institutions of Earth. How long did those institutions keep backing Moon missions? Three and one half years, before enthusiasm ran out. That's another obstacle that is beyond just the technological ones.
There are several reasons why some scientists express skepticism about colonizing the solar system:
* Distances Involved: The vast distances between planets in our solar system pose a significant challenge. It can take months or even years to travel between planets with current propulsion technologies. This makes interstellar travel expensive, time-consuming, and risky for humans.
* Harsh Environments: Most planets and moons in our solar system are not hospitable to life as we know it. They lack breathable atmospheres, have extreme temperatures, and are bombarded by radiation. Terraforming entire planets to create Earth-like conditions is a theoretical concept with numerous hurdles.
* Resource Limitations: Establishing self-sustaining colonies on other planets would require significant resources. Transporting the necessary materials, food, and water across vast distances would be extremely challenging.
* Technology Challenges: Current propulsion methods limit travel speeds and mission durations. Developing advanced technologies for faster travel, radiation shielding, and in-situ resource utilization (using resources available on other planets) is crucial for establishing permanent colonies.
* Economic and Political Considerations: Colonizing the solar system would require a massive, international effort with long-term commitment. Political and economic feasibility are significant factors to consider.
However, there's also a counter-argument:
* Technological Advancements: The pace of technological innovation is constantly accelerating. Breakthroughs in areas like propulsion, material science, and robotics could drastically change the feasibility of colonizing the solar system in the future.
* Human Ingenuity: Humans have a history of overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges. Our ability to adapt and innovate could pave the way for future space colonization efforts.
Overall, colonizing the solar system presents a complex set of challenges, but it's not entirely a dream. It's an ongoing exploration effort with both skeptics and optimists. The future of space exploration will depend on our ability to overcome these challenges and develop the necessary technologies.
A thousand years ago humankind couldnt even imagine leaving the planet. Yet here we are.
So what
And we're wiping ourselves out
@@Azamat421 the amount of disease and war we had to deal with a thousand years ago was way worse than now. My point was, if we survive as a species another 1000 years it's very plausable we will be colonizing other planets.
There is a difference between feasibility and desirability. We'll get better at space travel but in the end, places like Mars will still have nothing to offer, over an above simply remaining on Earth. Again, being able to do something is not the same as that something being worth doing.
@@saumyacow4435 asteriod mining is very likely to be both something we figure out how to do and something worth doing in the next 20-30 years which could lead to deep space colonization being more desirable and more worthwhile.
I can't imagine anyone not wanting to live alone in space after having met other people...
Try going to jail and being kept in a cell by yourself all day with nothing but some books and getting out to only take a shower. I'm sure after a month you'll be happy to be around ANYONE lol.
My PTSD comes from being hunted and beaten for sport in the name of Jesus during Don't Ask Don't Tell circa 1999.
I have a pretty firm understanding of what humans can call 'love' and alike.
That's a big reason I look forward to Hell, Christians can do anything and just say 'sorry' and get into Heaven. At least those in Hell had to endure SOME kind of judgement. Besides, Heaven will be a shit-show of people judging one another, condemning one another...
Fuck all that noise lol
Watch ad astra and maybe that’ll change your mind
@@brockb4452 I'm a 45 year old disabled vet who is Autistic and Homosexual. All I know is hatred and judgement from the others in my nation whom I have served.
No offense, nothing will change my mind.
Right to the moment where you realize you need someone to help you with something.
I totally agree here. All this talk is nothing but talk. Space is far too deadly for us to ever make it there for very long. We are just not made for it.
Us as humans used the same tools for hundreds of thousands of years, and yet in just the last few centuries our technological capabilities have grown exponentially. The colonization of our solar system is not the solution to all our problems, rather it is a question, and the answer is yes. It will be done provided we have the chance to continue developing. People have been saying this or that is impossible since the beginning of recorded history, and yet here we are today having mastered flight, doing things people would have thought were just fairy tales hundreds of years ago. The reasons for space travel are endless, ambition, resources, fostering national pride, the list goes on as far as the very void we will conquer. Even if we don't go into space out of curiosity, but rather for greed, it will be exploration none the less. Doubt is the enemy of progress, don't let it stop us before we've even begun.
Just follow Musk to Mars! There feeling all better now?
@@springer-qb4dv Musk or not, we will eventually follow someone to Mars if not further.
no it will not be done. just think of how often things go wrong here on Earth. everything on this planet needs routine maintenance of some kind. with the occasional catastrophe happening that requires tens of millions of dollars to come back from. one catastrophic event on a foreign planet would end that entire colonization endeavor. everyone there would die. and nobody else would be dumb enough to try it again. and that's taking it as far as actually making a colony. the actual building of the infrastructure on a foreign planet is even more impossible than surviving a catastrophic event after that infrastructure gets built.
this is not a science fiction novel. this is really fkn life. and we do not and will not ever have the means of moving a colony of people to a planet with no atmosphere. period. there are way too many variables and safety hazards to overcome that we will never be able to get past. stop living in fantasy land man. this will be the only planet that humans will ever live on. why not try colonizing the ocean before colonizing another planet? that's much more feasible. but again, one catastrophic failure and the whole colony drowns.
The biggest thing that will push us off the planet is the fact that the Sun will go Nova and we can't be here when it does, fact.
You make valid points based on current technology. I think it all depends on what technology is developed or discovered or even shared in the future as to whether we can colonize our solar system or others.
Technology is mostly at its theoretical limits for most part.
Yea.. He seems to think boomer tech will be as far as we get! :D
He seems to think we want to make other planets earth instead of enjoying them as violent nasty weird planets too...
He also seems to think space mining is to take minerals back.. to earth!?!?!?!
And lastly he thinks humans need a reason to go live somewhere... But they just need to have no one stopping them... :)
Try saving earth’s atmosphere before running off into the solar system. It’s irrationally myopic even pretending Mars should even be an option.
@@mtn1793 I believe in having a backup plan
@@garrisong Ignoring your present situation with an illogical fantasy is no backup plan it’s a delusion.
Great video making great points. I would not say space colonization will NEVER happen, but I do believe it is so far in the future that we really won’t be recognizably human anymore. I also must point out that Venus would NOT experience black nights; with such a high surface temperature, the ground itself would glow red-hot.
There are pictures of the surface of Venus taken from on the surface of Venus, it doesn't glow red.
Humans will never be robots keep dreaming nerd
Those pictures were taken in daylight, though. At night, there may indeed be a dull red glow to the ground which is drowned out in the daytime.
It's not that hot.
A lot of things have happened that people said would never happen. So i never say never. We have no idea if we'll colonize the system or not. If rocket technology gets more advanced and cheaper, like it is currently getting, then we might be able to colonize the system. Only time will tell.
Should we not try to make earth better place then go further / what about under the sea could we live there
@@alanaban3519 we can do both.
Alternative propulsion methods are being studied. Nuclear power will likely be used for interplanetary travel in the near future while chemical engines will be relegated to only be used to reach orbit.
@@sprinter768 we are already BUILDING the spin thing which launches you 15 miles into the air saving 8 tonnes (NOT TONS) Which is A LOT and only cost 2 million to build which we are ALREADY building and only costs 6000$ for one launch.
Which is Hella cheap compared to others.
@@theshimario253 please read my comment it's in the same comment section.
This video only shows the perspective on an individual level. You don't want to live on Mars, so therefore you cannot foresee anyone else wanting to live on Mars. My counter argument to that is there are plenty of people on Earth (albiet not an overwhelming number) that want to live in isolation on Earth already. There are a very small percentage of people who live entirely off the grid. There are also people who love risks; who unnecessarily jump off cliffs, travel to war zones, travel to different dangerous places here on Earth to seek thrill. You can't simply dictate what others want to do just because you don't see the appeal or practicality.
The initial group or groups of people who travel there commercially to start a new life would understand the risks, but also seek them. As long as the technology continues to exponentially advance that colonizing Mars is inevideble, and so is our solar system provided that there isn't an extinction event before then. We cannot be contained to one planet as long as there are people who want to go, and as long as there is enough engineering talent and money applied to the problem of getting and staying there.
The earthly risk takers you speak of don't require 100s to 1000s of other people to support their risky efforts.
I doubt they would be considered for space colonization which will require very conscientious participants.
There is a lot of people in Earth who wants to abandon Earth forever and live in a hostile environment like Mars. Most os them have deep psichiatric problems who would be dangerous for the mission.
@@rc1982 Most people would not want to go to north pole and south pole but would not think everyone that went there were psychotically disturbed.
@@rc1982 Oh really? Care to provide any references to that claim?
@@paulcooper8818 Colonization will be a commercial project. If you're physically fit enough to go and can afford it, you'll most likely be able to go
There are so many reasons that humans will never colonize space that are solid and measurable. I can see in the comments that there are so many dreamers that do not like this, but I think the video is spot on,. Not only that, people think we are going to continue to improve our technology, which I agree with, up to a point. However, I think there will come a time that we will start going backwards because of war and societal breakdown, which has started already.
Wh
Most people can't put these in order from largest to smallest. Earth, Universe, Sun, Galaxy, Moon. The understanding of physics by most people is near zero. They watch too much TV and see Jean Luc Picard flying in 5 minutes from Earth like planet to Earth like planet. It skews their thinking. Even relatively educated people don't think clearly about it and believe ridiculous things like aliens are secretly visiting Earth. Silly.
We maybe destroy everything but looking how we act the last decades it's always a up and down. I see it as part of our evolution. We are problem solvers and try so long we can. There always one who wants to break the boundaries it's our nature. I onced heard the funny theorie that we all are on counciousness experiencing live from different perpectivs. Well last is pretty dreamingfull but who knows. We see the universe in our way a small differnce in evolution could have completlly changed what we have become.
It's like talking to Trump.
We really don't have a reason to leave earth. If we ever achieve the technology to travel through intergalactic space, we'd be better off staying on the space ship, but when it comes to resource mining, we don't even need other planets to farm resources in space because asteroids and comets would provide the resources required for mining and they are easier to reach.
Our sun has five billion years before it expands into a red giant, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out way before then, we have plenty of time to figure out an eventual alternative to earth, but assuming we ever reach that stage, I have a feeling humanity will be living on space ships and rarely landing on planets, if at all.
It all seems highly unlikely, but at the very least, we will have artificial intelligence out in space exploring everything for us.
We should definitely try to colonize the moon, even only to test our ability to live on another planet. Everyone expected that would be done in the previous century. If we can't even settle a permanent base on the moon, it's not worth thinking of anything else.
Yeah! I'll come with you. Moon gets lonely and the only people who "want me" on Earth are law enforcement. 😃
The problrm is: we never been on the moon. This is the hoax of the century.
Nasa "lost" the technology and gave up making the spacesuit
Im guessing there will be at least a moon base within 15 years. The U.S could have built one in the 70's. They had the entire project planned out but ended it because there was no need. Now China has ambitions to build a base there which will drive competition.
@@Bitchslapper316
The Moon will be colonized because there are too many scientific,economic, geostrategic, and national pride benefits not to.
The biggest reason is the mood is loaded with He3, from the sun. It doesn't really h earth. But if Crack fusion, He3 is the fuel of choice.
The premise of this video is derived from a limited understanding of the benefits of living in space. First of all, it is unlikely that large groups of people will live on Solar System's planets or moons. People will most likely live in O'Neil cylinders developed inside asteroids, mostly around the Earth-Moon system, at least to begin with. Once we will have industry on the moon, the space economy has a few undeniable advantages: cheap energy, cheap transport outside gravity wells, and unlimited surface resources available in the asteroid belt. Yes, Earth has more, but not near the surface, not as pure and not as simple to mine. Imagine how much effort it takes to mine something from under 2km shaft vs hauling a small asteroid full of iron or copper. An economy like that will be boundless.
youre thinking your lifetime and not your childrens lifetime. our ships will get faster and i suspect we will colonize both Mars as well as Proxima B, as well as the moon with about a million people on each, and have space hotels / casinos in between these as rest stops. In my lifetime? as long as i look both ways while crossing the street I should still be around in the 2060s, and will likely see this come to fruition, or at least partially.
This is why I'm more hyped about O'Neil cylinders than Mars. The materials to build them are everywhere in the solar system, especially the asteroid belt.
We'll just use Science Fiction to pretend to build them!
The most likely place for a manned scientific base near Jupiter would be Callisto not Europa. The radiation on Europa is too high! Callisto is outside the radiation belt and probes on Europa could be managed in very close to real time. Titan is also an interesting possibility.
Another reason why there is no life on Europa. Well unless they have adapted to the radiation.
Yeah its likely when we land humans on Mars, Callisto will be the next target
There's a reason why Callisto is peppered with crater holes. It has no atmospheric defence against asteroid impacts. And being so far out from Jupiter, it can't rely on Jupiter's gravity to pull asteroids away.
@@Aquascape_Dreaming The best place to live is not on Callisto but under it. If Callisto has a warm core it might have agreeable temperatures in caves or excavated areas. This would give you protection from both radiation and surface meteor impacts.
Not sure, but maybe if you lived under a suficent amount of water on Europa you could be protected from Jupiter's radiation? Depends on if Europe's ocean is deep enough I guess
Ganymede (sp?) maybe? I believe although weak, it actually has a magnetic field, could help with the radiation and what not. Maybe underground there; has a lot of water, a tiny amount of oxygen even in a thin atmosphere as well.
Wow! Pessimistic much? Thankfully, we as a species strive to know the unknown, which is why we are where we are now. Maybe you're right, but I'd like to think we'll keep pushing the limits and boundaries of human capability! Who knows what will happen in the next 500-1000 years...
If we didn't manage to do it in 200k years what makes you think suddenly we can?
@@FirstCelestialEmperor 150 years ago, flying was a dream, now it's a commute for some people (and me)!
Like I said, maybe you're right, but I hope we strive to achieve colonisation... 👍
@@FirstCelestialEmperor it's called technological progress 😆
Umm.. striving to know the unknown is an entirely different thing to colonisation.
Realistic
You make some very good points. At the moment humanity is far behind the level of science, politics and attitudes required for space exploration. We need at least another 1000 years of progress in those areas to take up space exploration seriously. The required techniques should be fully developed, not partially, to ensure successful implementation.
We could start a colony on the Moon right now. There's sunlight for power, or just bring along a safe, compact nuclear reactor (invented and tested in 1970.) There's ice for water and oxygen. Silica for glass all over. There are iron deposits also. Aluminum too, but that takes a crap-ton of electricity to refine.
If I could live long enough, I have a spot picked out by Shackleton Crater. Near continuous sunlight, and ice deposits. I'd start by mining ice and getting hydroponics going. I'd get rich selling air, water, food and "cubic" to the latecomers, especially the Helium 3 miners. The merchants and suppliers get richest in a Gold Rush.
Once the bureaurcats start showing up, I'd sell off for a new grubstake. Somebody is going to need to build a railroad from the spaceport that will inevitably be built on top of Mons Olympus to the mines and settlements. Might as well be me.
Once the bureaucrats and busybodies start showing up there, I'd sell off again and head out to the Belts to start an asteroid mining business. Kind of short on sunlight out there, but there is ice in the belts. So with nuclear power you've got both oxygen and hydrogen for the plasma engines. And some of those asteroids have insane amounts of valuable metals. And there should be a booming shipping business hauling reactor fuel and other supplies out to the Belts and hauling ore/processed minerals back.
That is if humankind is actually here for another 1000 years. We are currently headed for global disaster. Humans are a highly disagreeable competetive species, the most dangerous Earth has ever known. It is not in our nature to work together for the good of the planet. Good news, the Earth could heal itself without us over time.
1000 seems like an arbitrarily long amount of time. I think it has more to do with when there are less problems on earth, which could be soon, in 100 years, in 500 years, or never(it’s truly up to us)
Humans went from never flying to walking on the moon in less than one lifetime.
I think once we discover the Mass Relays hidden across the universe, it will be a game changer
This isn't Mass Effect bro. It's real life.
@@jaqu56 who's to say we aren't living a sandbox alternate reality where an alien civilization is watching us? The possibilities are endless.
@@jimmylim5015 Who's to say the sun isn't made up of billions of glowing CIA agents getting ready to war with Earth, or elephants are actually ancient gods hiding in plain sight and observing us. Obviously, those statements are retarded, and I hope you know that's exactly how I view you. Who's to say you don't exist? You know what? You don't exist anymore, you are nothing. Goodbye!
@@jaqu56 who's to say that a snowflake can talk, like you?
@@jimmylim5015 If monkeys can talk, I think snowflakes just might be able to.
When it comes to our future space achievements, the OP is pretty optimistic when it comes to time frame. I don't see us doing much in the next 30 years. I tend to agree with a lot of what he stated. My answer to the Fermi paradox is that we're all stranded in our respective solar systems. If we ever decide to mine the asteroid belt, it'll be done with robots. As far as Europa, I'd like to be optimistic about it hosting life but he may be right, it could be devoid of it. As well as the other ice shelled moons. However, science communication and futurist Isaac Arthur doesn't care for "gravity wells" and thinks many of our a̶n̶c̶e̶s̶t̶o̶r̶s̶ descendants will be building and living on mega structures. I'm not so optimistic but if there's one thing folks are usually bad at, is predicting the future. So... who knows? We'll just have to wait and see if any of it materializes in our lifetimes.
Once humans colonize and flourish on bottoms of oceans and Antarctica, I will be more optimistic of humans colonizing outer space.
*Descendants, ancestors are the people who came before us.
@@tfan2222 Thanks for the correction.
The only reason human beings may fail to move off planet into the solar system and beyond has nothing to do with physical laws. It has to do with the painful fact that we cannot get along with each other. We are inherently violent by nature. Deep inside the most peaceful of us hides a slayer. I do not believe our evoluionary experience can necessarily apply to all living beings in the universe. I must confess that i think we are an out layer...a mistake that is uncorrectable.
You (just like the masses of people with the same cognitive dissonance would be) are gravely mistaken in thinking it were an optimistic view to like to think the moon Europa hosts life. Read the Wikipedia page on animal suffering to know better. You're asking who knows, and I happen to know why no civilization in this universe is meant to colonize outer space.
It's one thing talking shit when one is in their own environment, confidence become more challenged when one mistake kills you. All humans know they will make mistakes from time to time. Although, robots may do the deadly work.
I've seen the previous “Never”-videos, and while FTL and extrasolar colonization *may* remain a dream, it can't be said with certainty. The closer you get to home, you cannot use words of certainty like “will” and “never” with the same level of vehemency. This would imply having a perfect understanding of the future or a medieval mindset of all that can be discovered has already been discovered. This is a very cynical approach to the future and on the other end of Musk & Co., the other extreme you could say. Even with our current technology, we could at least bootstrap bases. Colonization is a long-term goal that may be centuries away, it can be the result of many steps in between which may take just as long. All modern technology is the result of iterations after someone created a flawed initial product after a prototype. Scientific research and recognizing potential at the right time is basically going hand in hand, and it is unpredictable or foreseeable where it goes and when something will happen, or how it will play out. Once there is a demand, there is also opportunity and over time costs will go down and become a normalized part of any economy. Currently, there isn't much demand for more resources, just as there was no demand for more land to colonize in 1492; however, it's possible that the resources of the solar system may be tapped one day. Skepticism is fine, when it applies to specific concepts or ideas, but it's a bad tool for prognosis.
100% agree with you!
@Armchair Magpie, I concur with your well reasoned rebuttal. The author has hired a somewhat convincing voice actor to narrate, but the narration comes off as smug, cynical, and dismissive of any opinion contrary to the script's frequent failing fallback to "I believe" followed by an emphatic never, thus earning this viewer's thumbs down.
💯 my man! Guy acts like we will never advance tech. moving forward. Very short sighted!
@@billhart9832I’m not convinced at all by the narrator.
I agree! I've always thought that the idea of terraforming was ridiculous. If Earth was to become an inhospitable planet, why would we travel to another inhospitable planet and try to terraform it? Wouldn't we just stay and terraform Earth?
@Frumentarii There is only one basket. Earth is our only true option. We don't and may never have the resources or the technology needed to move and safely sustain a significant population of people on another planet.
@Frumentarii
In 500 million years the sun will redshift to far for chlorophyll photosynthesis to work. That will be true for the entire system.
People routinely suggest plants will adapt. Why? Are they chemists? The only red shifted photosynthesis I've heard of is to energy poor to be useful.
It is elsewhere or die.
@@miss.g-shun-w
Why is that? Our technology is massively above what it was only decades ago. The biggest hurdle in interstellar is if FTL or cryogenic can be achieved. I consider cryogenic a limited option, because you have to power a ship and have it survive hundreds of years.
But for saving humanity from inevitable death, you only have to get a handful to a livable planet. Full terraforming will likely be impractical. But either that or a world we can naturally survive on as it is. Enthusiasm handles the rest.
@@icecold9511 Outside of Mars the AUs of even the "closest" supposedly liveable planet is just too massive reach it. Especially when you consider the fact that space is expanding exponentially and we can never ever catch up. Our technology will never be able to overcome that deficit.
But that's just one example and I could never do it justice explaining why we may never be an interplanetary species. But there's a video that I'll try to link to this comment that broke it down perfectly. The sheer cost alone was unimaginable....not to mention the political aspect.
@@miss.g-shun-w You don't really know what you're talking about. The expansion of the universe has to do with the increase in distance between gravitationally *unbound* parts. The distance to other planets and stars within our own galaxy, or even within our local group of galaxies is *not* expanding because they are gravitationally bound. Some galaxies are even moving towards us. The distance to other galaxies is still insurmountable, of course, but the expansion of spacetime is irrelevant.
No one ever listens to the guy who says "it can't be done." Personally, I think after we get over the Mars hype, colonizing the atmosphere of Venus with airships will be almost inevitable.
That will be fun, just doing races in our little sky crafts.
@@farttart597 - Seriously though, you look into how feasible the Venus model sounds, it will blow your mind. It makes the Mars mission look like pure madness, and meanwhile everyone can't stop fixating over Mars. Mars is a hellish $h!tscape: dust storms, cold, horrible view, 6 months of travel, no pressurization. They're talking about making this place into a vacation resort. We don't even have a vacation resort in fricking Antarctica. Venus, you have an AMAZING view, nice tropical weather, no need for pressurization. If they can figure out a way to make an aircraft self-sustaining in that atmosphere, then yeah, you could actually envision a civilian population there.
@@Brakathor Yeah, and if we could make it so that oxygen could float on the carbon dioxide atmosphere below. That would make it breathable. At least in my mind that would work. Mars, even if we did colonize it. It would be so fucken boring to live there. Also, we wouldn't have a trash issue; we just went through that rapper to the incinerator below. I am going to look into it further. Venus is already my favorite planet other than Earth; it is better than lifeless mercury or ever the same Jupiter. This planet has volcanos and a past of some resurfacing events. The only issue I see is getting a craft there in the first place. Maybe just get the resources from some asteroid nearby. Imagine when you go to cook, instead of using an oven, you lower your food in a metal box. I know my ideas are getting outlandish, but it is fun to think about.
@@farttart597 - The idea of colonizing Titan is another awe inspiring idea, but it's simply too far away. Otherwise, it would be quite easy too: possibly easier than Venus. I'm no scientist, but from what I understand, the worst aspects by far are the issue or pressurization, and the thin atmosphere. I forgot that aspect. Mars has almost no atmosphere, so you would have to deal with a substantial amount of radiation too. It really is pure folly. They had a twin live up in space for about a year, and he came back genetically altered to the point that he was no longer identical to his twin.
@@Brakathor Yeah, it is currently impossible to alter any planet significantly. We can even keep this one from heating up to much. I do think we will colonize other planets but in about 200 years. Yet, we will defiantly do that.
Well your never going to colonize space with that attitude
O'Neil Cylinders is still a possibility... we should be more optimistic, the fact that we've already been to the moon, built a space station and have several rovers on Mars should be a good indication of how far we can go.
Sure O'Neil cylinder is possible - certainly much more feasible than colonizing Mars. But first humans have to master totally self sustaining ecosphere with zero waste. Once we have functional O'Neil deep space colony, then we create almost unlimited living space for humans between Mars and Venus.
@@springer-qb4dv Dyson swarms also.
@@springer-qb4dv not happening
Not happening never lol
@@ramixpAPEX Ok pessimist.
2:30 Geologist here. We are in fact very short on rare earth metals because many elements pretty much all sank to the earths core during its formation.
The same thing happened in big asteroids, except they later got all smashed up, leaving bits of their juicy metal cores hanging out in space.
These are a fantastic resource. Lots of elements are so rare on earth that industry can't use them because they are so expensive to be impractical. Asteroid mining will happen. However, I agree that this probably won't lead to widespread human colonisation of the solar system.
Most of this can be automated, perhaps with a small skeleton crew to deal with hangups (but even that might not be necessary as robotics and Ai develops).
Have you watched the Kurzgesagt video on terraforming Venus? It'd definitely be costly, and isn't likely to start for centuries at least, but it does sound possible and definitely a smaller challenge than interstellar travel.
looking at the current Federal budget deficit that would be ambitious for the foreseeable one hundred years
They can even terraform our deserts lol
@@Marvin-dg8vj
100 years is a near magical time line considering it would probably take thousands to even consider thinking that would be a possibility.
Yes and people being able to levitate objects by waving a stick around and shouting "abracadabra" also sounds possible to some people. You see what's "possible" pails in comparison to what's probable.
Venus is the best planet for colonization and exploration. 5/10, not a 1/10. Enough water in atmosphere as vapors to make rocket fuel, lot of C02 to make oxigen. Factory for making goodies from Venus atmosphere. Cianobakteries floating in Venus atmosphere can for couple hundred years completely change atmosphere and reduce temperature.
I do think we may one day establish some research outposts on some of the other bodies in the solar system, but likely not full fledged colonies and certainly not until we come up with a much more efficient and faster travel methods, all of which could take hundreds or even thousands of years. If we even last that long
Our greatest problem is ego, where machines should lead the way, we want to put people, at 100 times the cost.
5:44 - 116 Earth days?! Uh, where did that figure come from? Last time I checked, a Venusian Day was 243 Earth days, even longer than a Venusian year (224 Earth days).
I'm glad there are people with more courage and desire to be a intrepid pioneer than you.
Complacency is the father of stagnation.
_Also... To intelligent readers (who do 'not’ have a ‘pathological disregard for rationality and reality')_
I recommend researching 'narcissitic personality disorder' (NPD) / 'cluster-B'; and know that they are the 'root of all evil' (especially 'ESFJ/ESTJ-narcissits'; Myers-Briggs reference, look it up)!
European 'ESFJ' are the worst personality type, and they are responsible for inventing 'racism' and colonization! It is in their neuro-psychology!!
The are extremely 'manipulative' and often use 'looking pretty' to distract others from the witch's mind-games / mind-rape, e.g. gaslighting, playing the victim or damsel in distress, creating 'flying-monkeys', and paying others to attack (or at times kill) someone for her. When caught, she will use her minions as scapegoats. European ESFJ are notorious for this especially in a racist context, e.g. Elliott Till.
ISFP (and ESFP) are the most complicit, narcissitic-enablers. ISFP also tend to be 'oblivious-codependants' (look up the definition).
SUMMARY:
Evil personality: ESFJ (ALL), ESTJ (cluster-b)
[Secretly] Evil and narcissit-friendly gunts/flying-monkey: ISFP (ALL), ESFP (ALL).
☝️ALL of them are secretly emotionally-disturbed, hence their need to create conflict (and at other people's expense, truly evil).
Spread the word! Thank you.
PS: ESFJ are Amber Heard behind the public mask.
___________
#Save_Soil
@@Human_01 OK. That was a bit of non sequitur, but I'll play along.
First off, there is little to no scientific backing of the Briggs Myers personality "test". Many people taking it multiple times arrive at different results sometimes only days apart. Oftentimes results can be significantly swayed by the mood you happen to be in that day. It was created in the late 19th century and refined circa 1945 by a mother/daughter duo with no academic training or qualification in psychology, sociology or otherwise. So your claim that any BMPT results are remotely definitive in gauging anyone is dubious and misinformed. Saying that all people of a certain BMPT "type" are indicative of pathological behavior especially. It comes across heavyhanded and certainly eludes to a cognitive bias and seems to reflect a clear agenda based approach.
Secondly I find it rather ironic how you're using a Dunning-Kruger fueled narcissistic and racist diatribe to attempt to call out a whole continent worth of people as narcissistic racists.
It smacks of someone that read some politically motivated opinion piece and, feeling congruent to it, try to sell it as facts. You cite no actual peer reviewed studies, most likely have no qualifications in any applicable field and make largely stereotyped blanket statements about whole racial groups.
Then you follow it all up with the classic credo of the biased and uninformed conspiracist, "Look it up!".
Do better.
No it's just so infeasible on so many levels. Will there be a cow pasture in outer space?
@@glen4326 idk. Are there cows in space? Can astronauts ummm naut the astro without hamburgers and leather wingtips?
Livestock was cultivated as an efficient solution to obstacles.
New obstacles require novel solutions. Having a hammer doesn't make everything a nail.
if anything he’s being a bit overly optimistic with the timeline of some robotic missions. nobody wishes it were otherwise more than i do, but he’s absolutely correct. the only thing i truly disagree with is the idea that maybe 50 years from now his pessimism will be laughable. this topic is not analogous to manned flight. we know with mathematical certainty that there will never be FTL travel, and that no aliens ever have or ever will visit our solar system. it’s heartbreaking but true
: by u 7th I I: :::::: by
How can you come to that last conclusion, one doesn’t need FTL for that
@@l21n18 Because we don't see interstellar empires. With FTL they don't have to be dense and therefore we can miss them. Without FTL interstellar flight is privilege of large and old civilizations. But it seems, that none such exists at least in our part of galaxy.
@@trex2621 how do we know, we’ve only been here a short time
@@l21n18 As we don't see distortions of spectrums of stars with peak in low infrared. In non-FTL universe any old civilization should Dyson-swarm its sun considerably, if not completely. And a species with similar life-cycle to us should do it within couple of millennia . Which in turn is blink of an eye in cosmic time scale.
Finally, someone that makes sense. I say forget colonies on other planets, forget mining space that's ridiculous. The only exception to this would be to do some of these things on the moon. Use probes robots and telescopes only it would be faster cheaper safer and a heck of a lot smarter. And why don't we build the biggest telescope ever on the dark side of the Moon some day? Like the James Webb or Kepler but ten or twenty or 100 times as big.
You forgot about the ionizing radiation on Europa. It varies on different locations but is on average 6 Sv / 24h. Io is blasted with 36 Sv / 24 hours.
I think the average human will get 2.7sv a year on earth so yeah thats a lot
@@SmartestRick13 1) No. Even in Ramsar you will get less in a year. Maybe you meant "in a lifetime"?
2) Yes, It is a lot.
@@dymytryruban4324 sorry i meant 2.7 millisieverts not sieverts
And don't forget about the radioactive squid monsters that live below the ice.
I would give Titan a 5 out of 10, but I agree with every other scale. You only need air and a jacket, not a space suit. If you had a wing suit you could fly on Titan too due to the low gravity. Thanks for your content.
If your head was exposed to the -170° atmosphere it would freeze, a spacesuit would be needed I think
Biggest problem with Titan is that it’s stupidly cold.
A jacket like a space suit 😂
An absurdly warm jacket.
@@Briggiealso, basically nighttime level dark for every minute of every day. Would be a depressing place to live full time.
The drive to create new ideas, tech and overall solutions comes from need. Hence this is why colonizing seems so impossible. Its scientific curiosity driving it not need.
It's interesting when we think of being honest and why. Obviously trust is essential actually required for any success.
Agree with you completely. Humans can't accept our isolation and the realities of the Universe antithesis to life.
Humans are designed for 1 Earth G
Without this , kidneys and liver stop working in any low G environment plus loss of muscle mass in heart over a few months even with extreme work outs .
So low G places are scientist brief play grounds / hunting retreats
Without robotic mining , even the asteroids are unusable
For a colony you will need roughly 1 G gravity for humans , that means cloud cities on Venus , Jupiter , Saturn and / or Uranus .
A spinning space station or O'Neil cylinder a much cheaper and realistic for options for colonization and mining
The colonization potential for Venus here is underestimated. Because of the thick atmosphere and Earth-like pressures in the upper altitudes aerostat habitats and possibly later floating cities would have good things going for them. There is good amount of scientific work that can occur on a base like that.
Thank you!
Research posts, maybe. Cities? I doubt it. The resources on the surface are not accessible so everything has to be shipped in from elsewhere..Really you're just wasting resources into a gravity well for no tangible benefit.
@@Burt1038 There's plenty of energy available and a huge balloon full of breathable air will float at one Earth atmosphere. A biosphere can be set up. Surrounding CO2 can be split into oxygen and carbon; and surrounding sulphuric acid can be split into water, oxygen, and sulphur. Specialized machinery can explore and mine the surface and can be pulled up, either from the city itself or by tethered submarine-like vehicles floating above the machinery. We know little about what's available on Venus. It may be well worth our while.
you've been watching avatar too much.
@@davidlancaster4476 the movie or the anime?
Why would we dream of living in pressurized, air conditioned environments? Such a good question. We're trying to do that without leaving Earth, though, so maybe for some people the idea of stepping outside being met with immediate death is a feature, not a flaw.
youre basically describing florida in the summer time..
Aren't we technically living in pressurized, air conditioned environments right now?
Humanoid robots who can gain consciousness and fix themselves while supervising machines that can build colonies will represent Earth. How silly to believe people with our tiny lifespan could explore space. However, human’s contribution can be to build the robots that become a million times smarter than us.
I think you underestimate your species, my friend. I don't think it'll happen in our lifetimes, but I do see humanity reaching out into the stars eventually.
Yeah... No. There are places on earth we can't colonize and we have water, air and easy access to supplies here. I don't think you grasp how far apart the planets actually are, never mind how inhospitable they are. The moon is right around the corner (only a handful of days away) and nothing... We are still hanging out in high atmosphere pretending it is space and that we aren't "falling" to stay in "orbit".
@@t0neg0d We can colonize any place on Earth actually. With Nuclear Fisson + Desalination, there's no such thing as an inhospitable place on Earth.
There are great challenges to colonizing space, but they all have a myriad of candidate solutions.
Just because baseline biological humans have difficulty with a colonization effort does not mean that future humans with post-biological vessels will. Biology is overated anyhow.
@@t0neg0d right, humans could never survive on the moon... oh wait they did and I watched them on TV live over half a century ago.
Moon colony is being planned and the first rocket in that program launched days ago, maybe you missed it.
@@RWZiggy Yeah , survived by spending enormous amounts of money for a few hours of picnic .
@@t0neg0d I’m well aware of how far away everything is, thank you. Need I remind you that 100 years ago if you told people we would have tiny portable computers in our pockets or that we could fly around the Earth whenever we wanted, they’d have had a hard time believing that too.
You never know what technological breakthroughs are in humanity’s future. Just because something isn’t possible or feasible now, doesn’t mean it won’t ever be.
In my humble opinion, I feel this video presents a very short sighted view. It does not account for changing technology and gets some of its facts wrong (a day on Mercury is close to 58 Earth days, not 88 - 88 days is a YEAR on Mercury). Here's how and why we likely WILL colonize the solar system... First, the HOW... So far, the only way to Earth orbit (and space) is chemical rockets which even with efficiencies and cost reductions brought about by Musk's SpaceX (and possibly other private companies), remain inefficient and costly. A hybrid rocket or scramjet/rocket pair could get us to Earth orbit very cheaply. Future ion engines with ability to give a constant 1g acceleration/deceleration will reduce planetary transit times for humans from months and years to just days or weeks. As to the so called "expense" of mining asteroids, the recovered ores can be put in orbits that reach Earth by solar powered (or nuclear powered) magnetic launch rails (in place of rockets) Very cheap!...Some asteroids carry rare metals worth more than gold per pound making mining and transport extremely economical AND many earth bound mines of these rare metals is extremely bad for Earth's environment whereas the space based mining operations have no negative environmental impacts. Another reason for colonizing space will be for the building of space based orbiting solar panels which can be made from materials on the Moon and/or materials from asteroid mining. However the MAJOR thing missed is "colonizing the solar system" does NOT need a "planet" or other body...space based orbiting space stations...cities in space could provide the extra 'living space' we may wish without needing to descend to a planet. Tourism, space mining and (solar powered) energy are the economies that will drive space settlement (at a minimum).
All hail glorious Musk! Please send Musk to mars first!
and who would you take ?
How many times has the word “impossible”, or the words “we will never” been said with regard to human achievements that have been attained?
How many times has musk said something is possible, and it turned out to be impossible?
Probably the same amount of times 😂
Well it may be possible far into the future but right now we have ONE planet that we are destroying.
we will never destroy the earth.... we can only make it unlivable for us....... think about it. .... the planet has been through worse than humans and will continue to be around for a very long time .
your video is a big motivation to solve all the problems that we have to make true the dream
Well, not with attitude we won't.
I agree. Colonizing outside our solar system is near impossible and not practical. Within our solar system it is still extremely limited and costly. Better off focusing on saving this planet.
@ Chris B thank you for watching
4 words: the sun will die
When i was a lad in the 70s, I read in an astronomy book by a professor in the field. who asserted with absolute certainty that we would NEVER be able to detect planets around other stars, much less do something completely fanciful like image them.
Also, at the same time, other experts at the same time were asserting that we would completely run out of oil in the early 21st century.
It turns out they were both right--using limited technological assumptions that were available to them at the time. But technology advanced over the decades in ways they couldn't foresee. Current computers and imaging technology allows both the remote detection of exoplants, and the imaging of some select ones. Improved drilling technology allowed for exploitation of oil reserves in places thought inaccessible, like the deep ocean floor and the arctic.
To assert that something can NEVER be is hugely short-sighted. You don't know, and will never be able to fully predict, what might motivate and enable people to colonize other worlds. You can certainly opine on why you might think it's a bad idea. But to say it can never happen is just plain false.
A 20th century solution to a 21st century problem ☝🏾
Should have read Alan E. Nourse. In 1960, he was writing about exoplanet detection methods we use today.
Agree - well said. Just one correction - there aren't actually any images of exoplanets - they are always artist impressions. Not even the new James Webb Telescope is capable of seeing an exoplanet. That doesn't mean it might not be possible one day with say an array of space telescopes.
@@Reuben-John Wrong. Fomalhaut b
studying things is one thing, actually making people live somewhere and not die is absolutely different
Back in 1900, There was a arcticle about why we would never achieve powered flight, and look what happened in 1903
Only a limited mind can affirm that. A little more than 100 years ago man though it was impossible to flight. Today we have gone to the moon, mats and even outside of the solar system. What it seems Impossible today will sure be possible one day if we as a race learn how to have peace, respect one another and preserve the only planet we now have .
Today we haven't gone to the moon. That was 50 years ago. Since then where have we gone? Technological advancement and human lust for exploration is not what it once was.
@@louisxix3271 we are still in the the “today” I mentioned. It’s not true that technological advancement is not as it was. We haven’t gone back to the moon yet, but we have sent human technology to mars and beyond. It all depends in the angle you look at
@@marcusdocarmo The way I see it, human civilisation is declining. Wars abound. We now worry more about securing a stable flow of electricity than expanding man's horizons in space. Poverty still dominates the globe. 3rd world countries are responsible for almost all of humanity's demographic growth. In 10, 20 years, we will still be talking about building a moon base, stepping foot on mars. But I doubt these events will occur in the next 100 years unfortunately.
@@louisxix3271 Yes. it’s true. We are full of problems and can’t see a clear path to a solution to stop wars, poverty, political extremisms, etc, etc…..Unfortunately, the same money that can help science can also destroy it depending on interests. We are still burning fuel to move our cars and machines even though electric cars are in the market because the oil industry funds politicians all over the world. I hope that If we don’t destroy ourselves in a couple of years (which is very possible), we learn from our mistakes and look forward to a better future. Let's see….
@@louisxix3271 we live in the most peaceful time in human history... what are you yapping about.... read a book ....... life if better now than any time in history no matter where you live.
I have to agree with you. The problem is, so many of us have grown up with sci-fi movies and series and it has become almost a religious belief that we'll one day whizz around space. But it IS only sci-fi.
...for now
All this guy is just doing, Is speaking complete facts. I agree with this man. 👍
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
"Space mining is prohibitively expensive"... 40 years ago so were computers yet here we are walking around with one in our pockets.
Every new invention was insanely expensive, and it becomes less expensive over time, even if in small amounts by the time we're old af, progress and innovation goes on.
We are walking around with what they wouldve called alien technology our phones are thousands of times more powerful than computers 40 years ago
What I imagine as the second best (and safest) alternative to being on an alien world would be to have a sophisticated technology that could probe the planet's terrain and send its sound and holographic images back to an IMAX-type theater here on earth. The theater would be configured to approximate the experience of being there. Perhaps it could even integrate into a next-generation Disney Cosmosland.
Ryu would disagree
🤔
...indeed!
Seems easy enough
-in a generation or two.
@@jlwilder8436 My thought as well.
Sounds cool. I will get on that....
Yup, NASA moon landings sorta did that, sometimes for a few tens of minutes, with the rover rides and such. If it was holographic that would have been cool too, but no tech for that in the 60-70's. But the Live TV was pretty cool as I watched as a kid then!! :D
Very logical predictions based on our current understanding of science and technology, I have a feeling that these predictions will be valid for centuries at least...
I'd like to think one day this is possible, but I think it's going to take ALL of mankind to figure this out.
No, it's not. It will take a few scientists and a lot of robots doing research and building stuff to figure it out.
@@vidyaishaya4839 no it's not possible watch the video
For what purpose? Why should we devote enormous resources to put people way out in the solar system? What is it that they can do there that they cannot do here or in LEO?
What if instead of colonizing those worlds, we make really big rotating cylinders to live inside in space?
Why would anybody want to live in a metal tube in space? You can’t just pop out for a walk.
@@gipgap4 if they are big enough, you can make parks inside them similar to what we have on earth. Plus, the earth’s population may grow so much that the cost of living will be cheaper off planet.
It is insane to do so but it makes a lot more sense than trying to live on Titan or Mars. Stupid.
sure you can and if you fall towards the earth youll just come around and land on top of the station again.. @@gipgap4
Pretty sure the beings on these other planets won’t want nothing to do with earthlings…
Agree 100%! All the wild theorizing leaves out so many mundane little things that makes human life possible. We're still struggling to made our wonderful Earth totally livable: Sahara, Antartica, Siberia, Australian interior, Gobi, etc.. So, forget about other planets.
Gonna be really nice inside the sun
I am Completely unconvinced!
Anything can be done if you try hard enough.
The resources in space are mostly valuable for use IN space.
You can use the metals, and water, to build and supply the bases and ships you need. Instead of building them on earth, and shooting them up into space.
Reasons to go into space AND develop the technology.
1. Discovery
2. Science
3. Adventure
4. Awe
5. Raw materials without an envirment to ruin.
6. A safe place to do dangerous research.
7. Amazing place to do Rest and Relaxation.
8. Because its there.
9. If we stay here, looking inward, we will destroy ourselves. Humans Demand challenges, Adventure, and expansion. Empires that stagnated, self destructed, ir were conquered by the next empire.
1. The "its too hard" excuse would mean we would NEVER have the trans Atlantic cable, Satelite comunication, light weight materials, high thrust engines, high speed flight, nuclear powered submarines, hell even the light bulb would NOT exist if Edison did not try over 10,000 different ways of making it work.
Also we tried building underwater envirments. Nobody lived there.
Once we begin building infrastructure, the cost and difficulty will be reduced by orders if magnitude.
If Colunbus did not have to bring Everything with him, his trip would have been easier.
Your Argument, is mind boggling short sighted. All that is needed is the will to build the infrastructure.
Drink koolaid too much? That's what billions of humans have said in the past 100,000, 200,000 years. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE! Yet all of them are dead. Positive thinking will only get you so far. Life is not some comic book where superhero comes to rescue. BTW where are those personal nuclear reactors? Cheap and practical flying cars? Modern miracle medicine extending people's lives to hundreds or thousands of years? Intelligent humanoid robot assistants like those in anime? Easy to think of it, but had to bring into reality.
Right all of these were impossible once.
1. Radio
2. Aircraft of any kind
3. Glass in pieces larger than a baseball.
4. Recording sound
5. Photography
6. Television
7. Faster than sound flight
8. Color LCD screens
9. Guided missiles
10. Modern Steal
11. Any bridge more than 100 feet long.
12. Nuclear power of any kind
13. Submarines
14. Ships built with steal
15. Clocks that can work on a ship or boat.
16. Voice recognition
17. Wireless ANYTHING
18. Precision machinery
19. Large scale.production of goods.
20. Roman concrete, which still lasts longer than modern contcrete.
21. Electricity
22. Electric light
23. Synthetic materials
24. The printing press.
Etc.
Videos like this are ridiculous and spread pessimism.
"nobody goes to live in the Australian desert"... 🤣 where do you think all the expanding Australian CITIES came from??? Or others like Dubai, or northern places like Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Norway? You vastly underestimate human determination and future technologies.
Top scientists use to say that the earth was in the center of the solar system, and people use to think that the speed of sound was unreachable, People also sue to say that living on the ocean floor was impossible, Just because it is impractable now and too costly now does not mean that will be true in 50 to 100 years.
All of those things came from a lack of understanding. Here we clearly understand the challenges as we've actually looked in to them
Colonizing outside of earth is a pipe dream
@@Korkzorz today it is a pipe dream. But 50 years or more who know what will be possible. We already have better ships and spacesuits then what we had even 20 years ago. And humans being who we are will always improve and strive for more.
@@Korkzorz All of those things came from a lack of understanding from people *who were completely convinced they understood*.
There were top scientists at the end of the 19th century who were convinced that our understanding of physics was complete (within 20 years, we would have general relativity and quantum mechanics), and that humankind would never fly (the Wright brothers achieved it in a decade). Would they dismiss the concept of a man walking on the moon within a century as fantasy? Would they be able to imagine what we would achieve in space flight (robotic exploration and space telescopes), and combined with our new models of physics, what detail we would learn about the universe and its origins? Our understanding now is further advanced from them as they were from the geocentric model.
The flaw in this video seems to me to be the assumption of at best roughly linear advancement in technology (therefore making assumptions about the difficulty of the task based on the present day technical barriers) combined with a static, present-day set of motivations to try (based on our current needs and resources).
We are not good at thinking exponentially. In the last 200 years, our population has increased 10 times the amount it grew in the 12000 years before it. Our way of life changed slowly over that 12000 years since the agricultural revolution, but our industrial revolution means it changes more than that by each generation. We went from whole civilisations not recording their history, to writing 3500 years ago, to the printing press 600 years ago, to the internet in the last 30 years. We could walk for 200,000 years, rode horses for 6000, built trains and cars for 200, and now we can go to space on rockets in the last 50. Yet we think the next generation will be like us.
Factor into account exponential change into account (both in our technology capability and humanity's circumstances) and we could be way of the mark here in our predictions for the future.
@@Korkzorz Not in our lifetime sure.
@@rochedl
Don't forget the issues in space, gravity, distance, radiation, resources, comfort, if we ever colonize other planets it will be when we fix all this issues. Maybe in 1000-10000 years. Don't forget, to terraform it will take tens of thousands to millions of years to achieve with current tech, and with advance tech thousands of years. The best will have at this worlds I'm the next 1000 years will be small outpost.
Space isn't as easy or fast to progress as in earth. It will take thousands of years to even be able to live in this worlds for extended time, and only in control living spaces.
Well, yes, obviously: those who say "WE will never colonize the solar system" are they who will never colonize the solar system.
this guy never heard of the indomitable human spirit
It's more likely people will wanna live IN SPACE and then at that point the resources around the solar system would be super cheap to transport between space stations.
Never say never, besides the title of this video goes against your channel, 'insane curiosity'
Maybe the "insane" part is correct! :D
@@ronschlorff7089 I think you are right 😁😁😁
Yes, it would be vastly more practical and cost effective to learn how to live in the vast unusable areas of earth. The Sahara or Australian or Arabian deserts or the Arctic or Antarctic tundra offer millions of empty square miles that would be vastly easier to utilize. They have air. They have terrestrial temperatures. They are not being bombarded with heavy radiation. They are not isolated by millions of miles of empty space. It doesn't cost billions or trillions of dollars to get there.
The other reality check is that we have not managed to maintain a truly self sufficent colony in Antarctica. Our atempts to build closed biospheres elsewhere have also not yet being successful. Meaning we still don't have the life support technology to pull space. colonisation off.
The thing that convinced me we'll never colonize Mars is the long-term effects of low gravity on human health. Humans cannot live long term in a gravity field as low as Mars' and remain healthy. That means stays on Mars must remain relatively short and there will never be permanent colonists, just staff that returns to Earth after a few.years assignment on Mars. The same problem will occur on every other body in the solar system except the gas giants (where the gravity problem makes even visiting the surface impossible), and Venus, where the surface is not really practical - only aerostatic.stations in the.atmosphere.
There is also the problem of radiation. Except for.the gas giants, only the Earth has a magnetic field strong enough to shield humans from solar flares. Only underground colonies would be practical, but the only places underground colonies would be possible have already been eliminated from consideration because humans cannot survive long term in their weak gravity.
Maybe some medical or technological breakthrough will change this, but right now, the only place in the solar system humans can successfully colonize would be earth.
We only know the effects of micro gravity or zero g but we don't actually know the affects of less gravity but there are engineering methods around it things like tracked centrifuges which combine centrifugal force and gravity to simulate normal gravity, Venus is in fact easier to colonize than Mars because of the dense atmosphere protects against radiation and is so dense that a balloon filled normal earth air would float and at the height the Ballon the temperature will around earth normal. I would looking up Isaac arthur on TH-cam his videos go into more detail
Evolution will do it's part
@James so true.
In my opinion, the best reason, whether or not it is feasible, to colonize other worlds is that is lessens the chance that one natural event could wipe out our species entirely.
Yes. It’s absolutely a fundamental requirement that we establish a permanent presence on another planet at some point. Doesn’t necessarily have to be this year or next year or even in a hundred years, but it has to be something we do if we’re serious about not going extinct.
One thing I disagree with that was stated in the video. It declared categorically that we will not discover life in the outer solar system. While it may be unlikely, we won't know for certain until we get there.
Until we know for certain, we are fools to assume...
@@relykSish The interesting thing I heard once (it was an FBI agent talking about UFOs) is that you can never prove a negative. We may never find evidence of alien life. Yet, that still doesn't prove it isn't out there.
@@katherinestives940 For 500 years man has been exploring space scientifically, during which time we have run 10,000 tests for alien life, and without exception, every single one of them has returned an absolute negative. Any belief in alien life beyond Earth's influence is faith-based belief.
@@relykSish I have never seen one million dollars. This does not automatically mean it does not exist. Again, I am not saying there is or is not. What I am saying is that you can not prove it does not exist.
I believe it was Einstein who stated that in science, you have to be right every time. You only have to be wrong once.
@@katherinestives940 I can, and we have. With every single test ever run, in the search for alien life, we have without any shadow of a doubt, decided that absolutely no alien life has ever been detected. Any further discussion on this subject would clearly be toward convincing you jesus is not on that cross.
I would agree about colonization, at least in the short term. I do think when (and if) we make progress in the capability of interplanetary space travel scientific bases will happen in both the inner and outer Solar System. We are a long way from the capability of interstellar travel if it is even possible. I think the development of AI will be a game changer though. Machines don't need the life support of living beings and if they don't replace us will be the natural for interstellar travel but I think that is a ways down the road!
Still can’t change physics. It will be out of reach for humans period. And no going to mars for 3 people be colonization. The resources needed will be astronomical. A few people does not make a space fairing race a reality.
Interstellar travel is already possible, albeit at sub-light speed, taking tens, hundreds, or thousands of years to get to the nearest stars.
The more you know about space and the Solar System, the more you realize that space travel is insanely difficult and deadly
When has that ever stopped us?
I disagree for a whole host of reasons. I'm in the camp with the likes Isaac Arthur and John Michael Gaudier. It will take time. It will be hard. There will be failures and loss of life. But our societies without a shared dream falter. Not everybody needs to share the dream, only a small percentage. But a small percentage is all we need to keep the dream alive and make progress towards the goal.
But that dream requires money, and resourses to accomplish.
And that is the point being made.
Elon Musk might inspire people to fund a mission to Mars.
And after they spend 5 times more than Elon predicted, and see what little inspiration it invokes in the public mindset, much less what little is gained having done so.
Those money's and resources will likely dry up quickly.
And this is a life colonization dreamer talking.
Just look at how quickly the funding dropped out of the Apollo program once the political goal of beating the Russians to the moon was achieved.
Regular people aren't inspired by scientific goals.
And only fear motivated them to achieve the political goal.
What sort of jolly happy Santa Claus goal do you think is going to inspire people to invest trillions to quadrillions of dollar's(cause that's what it will cost) to ferry fragile little furless monkeys across the vastness of space(just in this solar system) to colonize completely inhospitable locations?
It would cost us less, to politically unite ourselves to the goal of no longer fighting wars, or over fishing, or wasting soil on profit based farming, and learning to conserve or efficiently use what resourses we have here, on Earth.
Not one person you've met even gives a third of a remote turd about the long term survivability of life on this planet.
The only true reason for colonization.
To spread life onto other planet's, and ensure the survival of life in the universe for as long as is possible.
I agree to a point. I do think we'll establish small bases on the moon and Mars (and perhaps one day Titan), but our history of space travel is that we bail on it as soon as it gets too expensive, and actually colonizing these places would be monumentally expensive. That being said, I think that there will ultimately be massive, planet scale colonies on Mars and other places, but not human colonies. My prediction is that Earth will be for the humans, and the other planets will be colonized by AI. Hopefully they'll see that as a better option than killing us lol!
Spot on!
nope, he didn't fully consider the biological limitations, which are not surmuntable by technoogy, unless it's humanity going digital and becoming machines. otherwise people on mars would have life expentancy of maximum 20 years, and even if they evolved (imagine the sacrifice for generations) to be able to live there, then they wouldn't be able to go back to live on earth or to live on any other planet, because it would require to adapt again to the condition of an alien world.
@@tommyfanzfloppydisk We don't know what the effects of living in .38 G long term are. Claims like "maximum 20 years life expectancy" are baseless.
Preparation for human colonization could be done by machines, robot and AI with limited human personnel in situ. Artificial environment will be a good surrogate of earth, they are already existing and experiencing long term settlement.
I agree. If it’s likely we still got a long way to go. Space travel wont be big until it’s profitable but it may never get to that point because of cost
there are already some humans with lots of money who wanne pay millions and even more just for trips around the moon
or to the iss
if we have more efficient/reliable transportation methods and the infrastructur beeing able to visit interesting places
there will be a market for that imho
the drop in mass to orbit cost will have a lot of impact in the future missions to space
Crossing the Atlantic and flying in the air were also thought impossible, not very long ago in the scheme of things. The challenges seem insurmountable for sure, but outright dismissing them as such would indeed be the insurmountable obstacle.
In fact, it take millenias to did so. Even with the viking knowledge we never had the enough tech to send a strong fleet with enough resourses to make colonies until 1500
@@TheKarofaar the Polynesians did pretty good colonizing the Pacific with rafts and canoes.
@@zaatas Is about industrial projection not about sending people to survive in another land.
If we send some dragon ball capsules to another world, people just die in there.
We need to send an (many) autonomous fleet in wich one we have the resources to survive in this land against the environment.
Europeans did it sending cows, horses, vegetables and industrial production to extract gold, iron, copper, wood and all the stuff to build ships, castles, and all the stuff.
@@TheKarofaar i wasn't talking about space travel, i was just refuting the point you made about ocean travel like you needed some high society and industry to cross an ocean successfully. You don't. People were ocean hopping way before the Vikings and the 1500s my dude. China had the industry and technology to start sending ships in the manner you are speaking of before that date as well. Just didn't have the will or desire to.
@@zaatasand Chinese have been marginalized for centuries because of that.
If you look at what we can do with our current technology and thinking, no, we can't colonize the system. Then again, 1000 years ago humans could only imagine of flying like a bird. Given the technology and thinking then, an intelligent, logical thinking person could never conceive of humans flying like we do today.
The biggest limitation is thinking we are at the peak of technology and thinking.
we fly , yet its nothing like a bird.... thats your mistake..... we will achieve new technology someday and it will be nothing that we think is possible today.... atleast i hope so
and who would you take ?
I think that life is very prevalent in the galaxy. I remember a time not that long ago when scientists thought liquid water was rare in the Solar System. Now, we are fairly certain it is very common throughout the Solar System. I think the same is true of life.
Your proof?
@@bassmanjr100 My proof? That is your entire argument. Give me your proof life doesn’t exist in a galaxy full of stars (estimated at 100 to 400 billion by a scientist in the European Space Agency). The same scientists state that the Milky Way has at minimum at least as many planets as stars in the Milky Way.
In her office on the 17th floor of MIT’s Building 54, Sara Seager is about as close to space as you can get in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Kepler’s answer was unequivocal. There are more planets than there are stars, and at least a quarter are Earth-size planets in their star’s so-called habitable zone, where conditions are neither too hot nor too cold for life. With a minimum of 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, that means there are at least 25 billion places where life could conceivably take hold in our galaxy alone-and our galaxy is one among trillions.
Do I know for certain? No! I said that in my original comment when I said I think. Did I say intelligent life in my comment? No! However, I certainly hope the answer is yes. Based upon my reading about a subject that interests me, I think life forming in the right environment is very common. My opinion! If I had absolute proof, I wouldn’t be wasting my time responding to you because I would be the most sought after person on the planet because everyone would want to hear my evidence.
Thank you......reality is always good.
However, given a coupla thousand more years, O'Neill Cylinders may be the way to the future. Planets, especially “terraformed” planets, not so much.
These are reasons why we SHOULDN’T colonize the Solar system, but we still might try like you said. It won’t be exactly how we want. For example, we might be active in certain parts but colonizing is on the extreme end.
No cause this is all absurd money squandering.
@@yurigagarine6998once we start the costs will decrease.
I agree. There’s nowhere else to go. Terraforming is wildly expensive and impractical and space travel is much slower and more difficult than people think. We’re better off focusing on taking care of the planet we have.
imho we have little control about the caring of the planet stuff
there actually is very little "we" left
who knows when one dictatorship goes crazy and starts nuking us all away?
and thats only one possibility
there is no working together with stopping the climate change also
maybe its better to just go somewhere else and build something new
at least then there will be something left after we all killed ourself here
or we would start to respect our homeworld after seeing how unique and beautifull it actually is
@@Sippi81 There’s nowhere else to go. Mars’ core is dead; the planet has no magnetosphere and not much atmosphere to protect against radiation. There is no terraforming a planet that lacks the gravity to keep an atmosphere. It might be possible to terraform Venus… over the course of a few thousand years. Where else is there to go? Titan? The Moon? There is no way to shield spacecraft from cosmic rays; astronauts in the ISS receive much more radiation than we do on the ground, despite being within Earth’s magnetosphere. There is no such thing as interstellar travel, full stop.
Might as well get out a lawn chair and watch the sun get bigger
@@ronanaviation9520 none of us will be around when that happens. I doubt the human race will still exist in a million years, let alone 4 billion
You should rename the channel "insane Pessimism".
I think this is the most likely scenario. You can say all you want about future technology, but given the current and inevitable decline of all the most advanced societies around the world, it would not be surprising to suddenly wake up one day a hundred years from now and discover we're back to horse and buggy transportation, if we're lucky. Worst case scenario, we're all dead and the Earth is a burnt out cinder. Either way, none of us alive today will be around to see it, so it's silly to argue about it.
Protection from radiation and collisions are the main problem with long distance travel.
And speed and time. very hard to overcome.
I think most interplanetary and interstellar colonization is way too optimistic in most science videos this one is going a bit too far the other way with saying "never". It does seem like an insurmountable challenge to create permanent self-sufficient colonies away from earth I would never say "never". One possibility thats rarely mentioned is bioengineering plants, animals, and even humans to tolerate a different environment.
It's not too much if it's Fact
It will be a dream...
Until we solve our problems.
I'm sure at one point in time air travel was considered impossible. Nobody says colonizing other worlds would be easy, but if we don't annihilate ourselves first, we should be on track to have the technology to do it successfully some day.
humans cant kill all humans.... someone will survive......but colonizing other worlds will take a tremendous breakthrough in technology that we dont currently posses.
I love science fiction. Right now I'm deep into watching the Orville. But I can't say the more I learn about space the more I cringe when almost every movie does almost anything that has to do with space. Unfortunately science fiction has planted the idea in many people's minds that one day it'll be possible to just zip around to all the planets in the universe. And in most of these science fiction Endeavors everybody can breathe the same air on every planet.
Warp drive has a scientific basis. The tecnology is beyond us at present but physics is on our side. When Jules Verne wrote "From the Earth to the Moon" it was SciFi. It isn't SciFi anymore.
@MrComfyFrog. Site S4 is a legit place ..Area S4 is not. However, warp fields are being created at the sub atomic level. Baby steps for warl fields and fussion reactors. Thats how science and engineering work.
@@brigittedarcel1498warp drive is still scifi. The scientific hypothesis for it existing in real life requires us discovering a variety of previously unimagined exotic matter,
In 1860s I think it was Jules Verne who said: in 100 years we will have cities on the moon. In 1949 the novel Red Planet talked about how in the near future humans will colonise Mars. It’s been 74 years and we’re still waiting
I agree; anyone that understands in-system distances, and the compositions of its planets would “see” it. Our “civilization” will not stand long enough to develop the means to humanly travel much faster than we’ve achieved thus far.
Humanity will advance through the cosmos. Technology will improve over thousands of years and we will become type 1 well on our way to type 2.
@@yungpo9853 If “we” last another 100 years, would be remarkable. We’ll destroy this paradise planet before we achieve anything close to speed of light. Beyond Mars it’s gaseous planets with huge gravitanional wells, no chance we’ll move out of Earth. At best maybe put some people in the surface of Mars but “colonizing” it, pipe dream.
Pipe dream when talking about what we can do now. But certainly wouldn't be a pipe dream 100s of years in the future.
With Franklin Chang Diaz making the vasimr plasma drive that can get to mars in about 30 to 40 days instead of conventional rocket power taking 6 months to get there, just think of the advances we could make in a short period of time with regards to speed.
@@douglasdepirro8364 Yes, getting out to the gravity well of earth will always require brute strength but after that the long-distance missions can be achieved shortly with high tech nuclear and other propulsion systems interplanetary vehicles. Some of which could be entirely manufactured in space, next to a space station, like in the old movie "Conquest of Space".
I could not disagree more with this video
BECAUSE ?
@@davidlancaster4476 I said it in another comment so I’ll just copy and paste that comment here:
You make a lot of incorrect assumptions about the progress of technology to come to these conclusions. It’s absolutely unreasonable to assume that space travel will never get any cheaper than it is right now, especially with SpaceX developing reusable rockets. The same way that the advancement of sea faring ships in the early 15,000s eventually made crossing the ocean cheap enough that the colonization of the new world became a profitable endeavor. Also there is nothing inherently wrong about humans being greedy in space, in fact it’s the perfect place to allow our greed to run wild since there is an unlimited amount of resources that we could never hope to fully use up. There is also so much space to move into, that we will almost certainly not be fighting over territory. And last but not least, unlike the colonization of the new world which killed millions of natives in the process, there is no one out there for us to harm. The colonization of our solar system is an inevitable thing that will happen, and the benefits it will bring to us and our planet are hard to fathom right now
@@andrewparker318 the last time man went anywhere was in 1972 to the moon. where have we been since then ? nowhere ! how long do you think it would take to build a big enough space-ship to take a viable number of people to a new planet ? there are only 33 stars within a 12.5 light year distance of earth and they are not in a line after each other they are scattered all over the visible sky. so in reality, the first being 4.22 light years away, would be our first port of call, after that we are snookered, we either carry on to the next which could be another 5 light years away or double back to the next. even if we travelled as fast as the helios space probe (to the sun-157000 mph) it would take 19,000 years to get to the closest at alpha centauri with no chance of a rescue attempt, even if, by the time we had built that ship we could travel at 5 times the speed of the helios probe it would still take us 3-4000 years and still not know weather it is suitable. the distances are too great and the time lines not practical, it took 10 years for new horizons to get to pluto. we ain't going nowhere. sci-fi films made in hollywood are not to be taken seriously, fiction !!!
That title gives the vibes as that I believe NYT article where they said humans wouldn’t achieve flying in a million years
Agree on the fact that no other planet or exoplanet humanity has studied, sent probes, telescopes...is anything like our Earth. Temperatures, gravity, atmosphere, composition...I can't see us setting up colonies anywhere but here for the foreseeable future. We don't need to look for extraterrestrial lifeforms. Only curiosity is the driver. IMO all intelligent life is so far away from each other they'll never know the others that may exist. The universe is immense. Even getting to the next star system 4.2 light years away would take over 73,000 years each way with our fastest probes
Only way is to find the ability to fold space. Other than that it will never happen.
What's your definition of the 'foreseeable future'? 40, 60, 100 years? If so, you're incredibly shortsighted!