A Guide For "Human Expansion Into The Cosmos" [Infographic]

Dare to dream. YES!
Want to achieve you dreams.
Make PLANS!

Or sit on your butt and blame all your dream failures on the other guy. At least this is what our government does.

Hmm after looking over this map pretty carefully it appears out civilization is just now at 1993-1998....awesome

I make $82h while I'm traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris…This week I'm back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out, Red97dotcom

Well said Robot. However, you need to modify that a bit if you are in Germany.

The American way
1)Dare to dream
2)Want to achieve your dreams
3)Make plans

The Germany way
1)Dare to dream
2)Want to achieve your dream

3)Contact responsible agencies to find out if you are dreaming in a regulated area. If so then it must be determined:
A)Do you possess the necessary qualifications to continue dreaming by yourself , if yes continue to (4) if not then
B)Contact an expert that has the proper qualifications and/or passed a state approved exam in the area that is being dreamed in.

4)Determine what part(s) of the dream require approval (Genehmigung) and registration (Anmeldung) from/with the proper departments and their cost.

5)Consult (or have the expert do it) the Baugesetzbuch (Building Codes) to determine if the activity in your dream is legally compatible with the location you are dreaming of .

When the necessary licences, registrations, inspections and costs thereof (plus value added tax) have been determined….

6) Make plans

Screw exo-planets, why are we not on mars? Why is there no martian asteroid minig station?

Knock knock people, anyone else notice this problem??!?!?!?

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain

That took a long time to read through, and like most future plans was entirely too optimistic about the time line.

While technological growth advances exponetially, breakthrough technologies progress less exponetially, since they require exponential technological growth to support them.

There were some things which were aproaching correct (ground to orbit airplaces are very similar to VG's lwo orbital plans, albeit with a two-part system).

Others, like "world-ships" are clearly generations off - without incrdible robotic advances that produce exponential work output.

I am assuming that by "sky hooks" this is referencing space elevators? Also, the forces required to move, reset, or even adjust planetary objects in space seems to be underestemation (or energy production methods are overstated).

Nice thoughts, but definetely in need of a less human-presence centered method, more details on industrial progress and capability, and a reset on energy production, development, and implementation.

Want to know why we are so far behind this plan?
If you notice the "Critical Path line" it says
-Lunar orbit staging facility
-RETURN TO MOON
-Lunar outpost established
-International Lunar Base
-International Space Port
-Moon Port
-Self-supporting Lunar base

And yet I keep hearing this nonsense about the moon being a waste of time, and human exploration being unnecessary.

WE are not on this path at all. (not officially anyway)
We are on a completely different path.
A path that leads nowhere.

Unless maybe China can pick up the slack.

KillerT, the reason the moon is worthless is because it has no value, MARS has value. The most the moon could give us is a dying space gas station, while Mars gives us a raw material supply (asteroid belt), a faster way to build and launch interspace ships (Mars is smaller, and has less of an atmosphere), and it's a strategic point in the solar system (the last rocky planet, at the edge of our habitable range). The moon would most likely die off once we got to mars, and if not, it'd just be a dying refuel station.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain

The moon does have value, since it is a resource (fuel and material) that is close, relatively low grav (less energy to leave surface), and attainable with current (even last-gen) tech.

In energy cost and time, which is easier: roping an asteroid into Earth orbit for resources (which includes accellerating and decellerating the object percisely) or pulling material off the gravity of the moon?

If the moon is cheaper, then why not mine the moon first, and use asteroids in the future to maintain the moon's long term mass (we have gotten rather accustomed to the gravety effects of its current mass down here on Earth). After all, if you are just restoring mass, you don't have to worry as much about deceleration - only aim - since you would simply dump the extra material on the surface over and over again.

The moon is dying - if you mean that human life cannot sustain itself there. We need something at or near 1G for good health. Mars is only better IF we increase its mass to a habital amount (and that means more asteroid bombardment).

Still, going planetary is likely not the best course for humanity in the short term - too big, to hard to turn and affect (look at how little we have affected the existing enviornement here with human industry over the entire history of man).

Going small (relatively), as seen in the "Gaia proliferates" circle is far more promising. The only difference between adding mass to Mars and digging in efficient life systems and taking a large asteroid into Earth's orbit, hollowing it out, putting a life system in it, and spinning it for gravity is that the "life ship" is on a scale that is more approachable for near term space expansion.

A biome filled orbiting body (an "inside out" micro-Earth) would be exactly the kind of "generational ship" that could act as a future seed to other solar systems.