Talk:Space colonization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeSpace colonization was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Earth Orbit and Lunar edits reverted why???[edit]

Noticed axed my contribs to Earth Orbit and Moon were axed (we know who), grounds: opinion. I feel the sentences I added were factual and obviously so. May I recommend reference to the corresponding main WP articles for the specific colonization targets.Wikkileaker (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep in mind that this entire article is speculative, and therefore "opinion". No one has ever built a space colony. It is a product of imagination only. Every single sentence here is mere "opinion". Disputable Wikipedia articles pertaining to hard science and politics should adhere to the standard of dry fact; however, articles like this one should be held to a looser standard because of their inherently speculative nature. The standard here should be that of being agreeable to sound judgment. The sentences I inserted meet this criterion soundly.

Strictly, this entire article is "opinion" and should be recommended for deletion along with all the other Space Colonization articles. Space colonies do not exist, and everything to be said about them is mere "opinion".Wikkileaker (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Two major issues with your edits: (A) Wikipedia may add opinions of experts supported by citations published in reliable sources. Wikipedia may not add opinions of wikipedians. (B) Please read our rules about inadmissible original research: a wikipedian cannot add various information about orbits, asteroid belts, etc. into this article, however correct and factual it may be, unless this information was discussed in published sources which specifically discuss space colonization. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Then this article is about to get a whole lot shorter.Wikkileaker (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is that a bad thing? Accuracy is more important than speculative verbiage. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Try reading my post again. I don't think we should need a PhD to state the obvious and the common sense. And just because an "expert" says something does not mean it's necessarily gospel. I can submit numerous examples of so-called "authorities" making the stupidest statements imaginable.Wikkileaker (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Please don't even start. We hear this for 15 years now. We have the most fundamental content policies WP:V/ WP:NOR (and WP:NPOV) forged in countless battles of huge cohorts of wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Yeah you do sound pretty jaded so I'll not belabor the point, sound as it is. Gives me an idea for a book title: The Death of Common Sense. (oops, just checked Amazon & it's already taken. good thing book titles can't be copyrighted!)Wikkileaker (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Placed more info of Energy uses in space colonies. Updated with info about new technology and research being done for it(JAXA/Mitsubishi). All facts no opinions. Also placed more info in Asteroid mining for materials for space colonies. Astroids carry a lot of usefull stuff for fuel, materials etc.

Lost in translation[edit]

"However, the value of SPS power delivered wirelessly to other locations in space will typically be far higher than to Earth. Otherwise, the means of generating the power would need to be included with these projects and pay the heavy penalty of Earth launch costs" Huh? The SPS will have to have that regardless where the power is being delivered to. Or does this mean turbines & mirrors will be built in situ? In which case the technology to do it will need to be developed, which seems more costly...unless we presume use of telepresence. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Space colonization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space colonization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Very little about colonies in space rather than just off-earth[edit]

Should this article not concentrate more on "the free space settlement designs of the mid-1970s: the Bernal Sphere, Stanford Torus, and O'Neill cylinders, as well as on Lewis One, designed at NASA Ames Research Center in the early 1990s." & "Kalpana One" [1] - if not here, then where ? space settlement just redirects here.
... Found it : space habitat - Rod57 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed talk page edit to delete External links modified sections[edit]

Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts? and Template_talk:Sourcecheck#Can_we_change_the_standard_message_to_says_its_OK_to_delete_the_entire_talk_page_section I'd like to delete the above External links modified section(s). Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Proposal to increase the information in the funding section[edit]

I think the funding section needs more information because it is an important topic. The contribution that I will be making is about doing some research about the different governments and private companies around the world that are funding or are planning to fund future explorations and how this can affect space colonization in the short and long term. Let me know what do you think. Thanks EliasEscoto (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The examples would have to be projects that actually focus on building habitats for a colony (a self-sustained permanent village). A base or an orbital laboratory/hotel where the crew is rotated periodically, is not a colony. Planetary science probes and robotic mining are not colonies either. SpaceX wants to start a base and they "hope" to expand like a colony. But the bad news is that current medical research indicates that humans do not fare well in microgravity; likely it is the same for the low gravity of Mars and the Moon. Who knows, maybe genetic engineering (eugenics) may be used someday to study that option. Rowan Forest (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank You, for your insight Rowan EliasEscoto (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I Added An New Information To The Objection Section[edit]

This is the sentences that I added "Other argument is call the Bullerby Scenario. It debates that high advance civilizations are more concern in their spirituality and in building an peaceful utopia civilization than space exploration. This thinking refers that as humans get to a more advance civilization, they will start moving from the mentality of having space civilizations to a spiritual world."

If you have any concern or ideas please let me know. It is my first time adding something to Wikipedia. Thank You EliasEscoto (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Article for Space Colonization[edit]

I would like to add this article. I will be grateful for suggestions:

Education focusing on space colonization The Integrated Teaching and Learning Program of the College of Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder introduces students to the historical motives for space colonization and exploration. These young men and women learn about different topics, technologies, and innovations such as the International Space Station (ISS). https://itll.colorado.edu/k-12_engineering/ https://www.teachengineering.org/lessons/view/cub_space8_lesson01 Many individuals, corporate organizations, and non-profit institutions have different levels of involvement in the exploration as well as colonization of the galaxy, the moon, and other planets like Mars. Amazon and Bluer Origin founder/CEO Jeff Bezos plans to convert space into an adventure and leisure destination. https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184466/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-tourists-space-2018 On the other hand, Space X and Tesla owner Elon Musk disclosed his plans for a Martian colony to save human beings in case civilization experiences an eventual collapse. https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-published-in-new-space/ https://theoutline.com/post/5809/the-racist-language-of-space-exploration?zd=1&zi=pbmrnwkq According to Science Daily, scientists recommended terraforming which can facilitate the long-term colonization of the Red Planet. They say one solution is to release carbon dioxide trapped within Mars to condense the atmosphere and help heat up the planet. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2175414-terraforming-mars-might-be-impossible-due-to-a-lack-of-carbon-dioxide/ According to a study sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Mars does not have enough carbon dioxide that can warm the planet. Exploration by human astronauts cannot take place without life support systems that only technology can facilitate. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180730120307.htm Meanwhile, the NASA revealed the Agency’s space vehicle, the car-sized Curiosity Rover discovered organic molecules in an old lake bed which indicates that Mars could have supported life in the past. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html Curiosity also detected methane cycle with three times more methane gas during summer compared to the winter season. These organic molecules refer to very delicate carbon-carrying particles preserved in sediments as old as 3 billion years. https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018/06/20/nasa-discovery-hints-possibility-ancient-life-mars The NASA’s target is to send humans to Mars by 2030. It scheduled the flight of Mars Insight Lander mission to Mars in November 2018. https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/mission/lander/ NASA scientists described the In-Sight Mission as the “first health checkup in more than 4.5 billion years.” The launch was initially scheduled in 2016. However, the agency redesigned some components that caused its delay for several years which added another $153.8 million to the cost of the craft. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-we-colonize-mars-nasa-timeline-2030s-2018-2 Mars remains as the closest cosmic body to Earth that offers the most potential for colonization. This planet’ mass is higher than the earth by only 10 percent while gravity is more than one-third of the earth. Mars is small, dry, and very cold with almost no atmosphere composed mostly of carbon dioxide. Earth and Mars have elliptical orbits. Both planets rotate around the sun at varying speed. The distance between these two planets range between – 35 million and 140 million miles. https://medium.com/swlh/colonizing-mars-a-new-new-world-2f6e78d20140 A company called Dream Up, co-founded by Carie Lemack, former national security expert and advocate as well as graduate of Space Camp seeks to bring space-based education and research to classrooms. This program accepts students from all age brackets (primary school to post-doctorate) and accessible in urban, rural, suburban, and regional districts. Dream Up make use of multi-media tools along with user-friendly approach to scientific learning. Its dynamic curriculum emphasizes student commitment and individual empowerment. https://www.space.com/41666-space-based-learning-transforms-education-industry.html https://www.space.com/37929-dreamup-space-based-education.html

The NASA has taken the lead in motivating interest among the American youth in the fields of STEM by way of its mission, capabilities, targets, technical working staff, research, experiments, facilities, and inventions. Students, school administrators, and faculty can explore and undergo one of a kind space/aeronautics contents using education opportunities provided by NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/programs/index.html

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It is unclear to me what is that you are proposing. The article "Space colonization" already exits, and most of the info you describe is geared towards a Mars base and colonization of Mars -also existing articles. However, these articles can always benefit from updates or restructuring, especially from a university student project. If I can be of any help please let me know. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


I added new information[edit]

I am really happy that I supported in some way this community. This was a school project. The last two informations that I added were the following ( One in the goal section and the other one in the objection section). I used data bases to support and find the information. Please if you delete the information, provide feedback. I will say bye for now to Wikipedia and its awesome community.


In 1986,The US National Commission of Space had ambitious goals for the early 21st century. By the year 2000, they were planning to have the first earth spaceport. And, by 2025, they were planning to have 3 more spaceports. This included one human base in the moon and two astronauts posts on the two moons of Mars. This was going to guaranteed the first space high-way in the solar system. This goal was really ambitious at the time. But as time progressed all these ambitious fade away. The first spaceport was not open until October 18, 2011 in New Mexico. The main reasons why this goal had taken so long time are funding, technology and collaboration among all the countries.


Second Post

Another objections is that space colonization will not happen soon. The better strategy for humans to colonize space will be to find a planet like earth to settle down. And, as their technology progress. They can start focusing to do agriculture in hostile environments within the solar system. Technology had always played an important role for human survival in new environments since they explored out from Africa 80,000 years ago.

EliasEscoto (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eliasescotol: Sorry, but your additions had to be reverted. Thanks for adding some citations where they were needed in the article, but your other contributions were improperly supported (the citations weren't named and were inaccessible), and unprofessionally written. Zortwort (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

“Professional” writing isn’t a requirement - clumsy grammar and phrasing should be corrected not removed. However unsupported material must of course be removed. Just sayin. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Andyjsmith: It's not a requirement, but the article was made markedly worse by the inclusion of that writing. Further, there's some writing that's just so bad it can't be corrected in any simple way except by totally scrapping it (I think that to improve his writing, had it been properly supported, would have required trimming down those paragraphs to 3-5 lines.) Some things like the references to the ocean and Antarctica were just nonsense details, and the claim about Africa hasn't even been proven true. When it's clear that a collection of edits would not have improved the article, that's ample grounds for reversion, and I don't think that the content he added would have been important or coherent enough to be a sure improvement even if it was supported. Really it comes down to whether anybody would have sifted through that section to correct it, or whether it makes more sense to, if it's important, make new edits along the same lines and remove that in the interim. Zortwort (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Zortwort. Although in principle an entry can be fixed for minor grammar, user EliasEscoto consistently introduces large amounts of text barely tangential to space colonization, with poor or no support from the references cited. A student project on colonization would hardly be a notable plan to include. All together, a revert is expected. I know EliasEscoto is collaborating in good faith, but being a new editor he may be unaware of the need for high quality references to support his entries, and less need for editorializing. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)