asteroid colonies

On Abuzz? If I ever go to that site, I am bored immediately, and I have other sources of entertainment available to me. Now if the colonists were prisoners banished from the earth, Abuzz would be a fitting and proper place for them to communicate! :wink:

Finally, a use for Abuzz

and the reason you are proposing this is?....

I have read that E-man Youall Kant went in for astronomy in big way, and confidently predicted that no new heavenly bodies would be discovered. Shortly thereafter, the asteroid Ceres was discovered. Kant then went into philosophy, a field in which bs is not so easily refuted . . .

Do you seriously think that any 2 women would want to be stuck on an asteroid for 60 years with children?

How are they supposed to complete any projects, when raising and educating children would be a full-time job in itself?

Think how many spacesuits you will need for the growing children, not to mention diapers, etc.

Will their bones grow properly in a low-gravity environment?

How do you protect them from cosmic radiation? (No magnetic field, no ozone layer)

What happens when the kids grow up and have only the kids from the other family to date and marry? Who do the grandchildren marry?

Why would we want to put a colony on an asteroid in the first place? Or for that matter, on Mars?

If you must have an outpost on an asteroid, I suggest that you staff it with monks.

The Kant-Laplace theory sez that he did give science occasional thought.

overall impression-seems like a Monty python way of starting a colony . We can send Mars vehicles from earth in a faster transit. Maybe using asteroids as supply barges, .

I dont like the sacaficing of lives part. That needs some more work

The first big problem is getting there and the major problem in this is deep space radiation which is lethal and for which we have no protection. Leaving aside the fantasy of actually finding people who would go, getting them there alive at the moment is not possible.

Hi terry: As unattractive as it seems, I think there would be more volunteers than we would care to screen for the best choices. Those ladies that colonised would likely have regrets, but few of us escape some serious regrets. By age 15 or so some of the children would want their own habitat, and it will take modest energy and only a few hours (when a close fly by occurs at about the same speed and direction/Rockets that had delivered supplies could be modified for the transfer if the original craft was no longer suitable) to transfer to a different asteroid and build their own habitat, then the two ladies would have empty nest syndrome if all but 1 or 2 of the children left. More children would be born, preferably to the youngest of child baring age in each habitat.
Over population would be a problem in some habitats, with ages from 1 to 99 years old at about 15 year intervals. If some twins were born, that could be 9 or 10 persons in a tiny habitat, unless the asteroid was suitable for 2 or more habitats. Male humans would definitely lead to in-breeding. Males should be avoided. Does any one know of a way to avoid male births that would not anger the right to life crowd. Using embryo banks = surrogate mothers completely avoids in-breeding and a sperm bank makes the problem rare if males rarely conceive children in the tiny habitats. Neil

Let's look at a hypothetical year 2077 female population of asteroid habitats; 2007 age 0, 2, 18, 29, 36, 74 2008 age 3, 4, 23, 29, 39, 73 2011 1, 14, 25, 37, 59, 92 2012 probably no one alive 2024 1, 16, 19, 35, 79, 96 2025 6, 8, 37, 42, 51, 68 2026 4, 17, 19, 31, 54, 58, 80 2037 0, 14, 29, 35, 47, 65 2038 10, 19, 26, 31, 43, 57, 68 2039 1, 1, 5, 12, 28, 44, 2040 probably no one alive 2055 15, 18, 22, 31, 40 2057 0, 11, 27, 29, 29, 35, 49 2061 44, 52, 55, 57 2062 0, 7 ,9, 15, 16, 33 2069 1, 5, 5, 5, 12, 32, 2055 and 2061 are on the same asteroid connected by a 146 meter tunnel that is less than one meter in diameter. Analysis: the triplets were born in the last new colony formed. This is not the longest gap (8 years) but close to it. No children were born in the late 60s except in colony 2062 and 2025. All except 2025 and 2069 can spin off a new colony and several appear ready to. The recent high birth rate indicates growing intention to spin off colonies. Only 2057 could safely spin off two colonies near term. Most colonies were started with one teenage female and one older woman in her late 20s or 30s. typically both produce children in their new colony. Not counting the 7 persons likely dead in in 2012 and 2040, there have been only 3 deaths in 70 years, which is compareable to first world countries of Earth. Most of the colonies have a female in their 40s who likely can but probably won't produce another baby. All the older colonies have one or more senor citizens, indicating that life expectancy is about as good as on Earth, even considering the probable accidental death of 2 habitats. 4 senor citizens are age 79 or older. There are 16 colonies, including 2 likely dead, 4 that originated on Earth. 3 out of 4 original colonies are still reasonably healthy. 3 colonies are in trouble, but survival is probable until 2087, perhaps long term. Only 2038 and 2057 have 7 persons, most of the others have 6 persons at present (including pregnancies which are shown as 0 when confirmed. Some important new technology is enroute to most of the colonies that will likely make it practical, and reasonably safe to spin off colonies to comets and moons as far from Earth as Jupiter. What else do you see in this data? Neil