Chip

Gerard O’Neil gave his Princeton physics class students a task as outlined in a 1977 dissertation by him from <a href="http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/CoEvolutionBook/TESTIM.HTML" target="_blank">http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/CoEvolutionBook/TESTIM.HTML</a> :

“Although it has precursors in the works of many authors, the modern idea of space colonies originated from several questions, posed six years ago as an academic exercise:

1. Is it possible, within the limits of 1970's technology, using only the ordinary construction materials with which we are already familiar, to build communities in free space rather than on a planetary surface like the earth, the moon, or Mars?
2. Can these communities be large enough, and sufficiently earth-like, to be attractive to live in; small worlds of their own rather than simply space stations?
3. Would such colonies have unique advantages from an economic viewpoint, so that they could justify the costs of their construction and contribute in a productive way to the total human community?
4. If such colonies were built, would their further development be such as to relieve the earth of further exploitation by the industrial revolution, and to open up a new frontier to challenge the best and highest aspirations of the human race?

Surprisingly, six years of continued research has confirmed, in even more increasing detail, that the answer to all four of these questions is a strong '’yes.’”

For a collection of artist renditions see <a href="http://www.ssi.org/space_art.html" target="_blank">http://www.ssi.org/space_art.html</a>
The plan as it so far stands does not seem to take in the possibility of building low orbit platforms accessible via solar run elevators, such as stipulated at <a href="http://members.aol.com/beanstalkr/project/CHART.HTM" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/beanstalkr/project/CHART.HTM</a> where you can join as a volunteer and they recently added a forum. Their claim is that using existing materials, we can build fuel efficient and ecologically sound access to outer space NOW!

Should we go? What is stopping us? Me thinks we need to learn how to run space colonies in general and starting with this one right here.

Regards, Chip

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>

American Agnostic

I'm all for space exploration and colonization but we still have a basic problem that is holding us back, namely the cost of getting payloads out of Earth's atmosphere and into orbit (current rates run at about $10,000/lb!). In the next decade or so the next generation of launch vehicles will go into production, allowing payloads to be lauched for perhaps $1000/lb. althought this is still pretty cheap it will begin to allow bussinesses to try and make a profit from exverthing from tourism to production of zero-g materials to attempting to mine resorces form the moon. Once you've goten into orbit it's relatively easy to move around the solar system because you don't need as large of a delta V(change in velocity). There is also work going into trying to make space elevators a reality. This would be the ultimate Earth to orbit transportation system as it would be able to massive payloads into orbit for mere dollars per pound! I think that once the cost to get into orbit around Earth drops then we'll see space travel REALLY get started. I doubt NASA would want to stick around in Earth orbit if there were private bussinesses gearing up for the Moon. NASA and similar agencies of other governmets will likely end up takilaying the ground work for the privite sector, exploring and perhaps setting up the initial bases on other planets.
As to space colonies, I'm not quite sure about when they'd be built. The first of them might simply be resort hotels for tourists but they could grow into full scale cities. I would think that building on the Moon or Mars or the other planets would be more appealing though since you could mine the resources that you needed for maintaince and general production from the surrounding area instead of having to trade with Earth or another colony for it. They'll probibly come into existence eventually but they would need to trade for resorces to build anything, including items to trade, since even if there was perfect recycling of resources (they would want to get as close as possible to being self- sufficent but probibly would still need to bring in new resorces to make up for waste and leakage into space) they would need resources those that are used to build trade items.

enigma555

If you're interrested in learning more about what is out there and what we need to do to get it, I recommend you read "Mining the Sky" by John S. Lewis. It's a great book. Massively different from most 'pie-in-the-sky' authors, Lewis actually goes over the economic potential for various missions.

After reading that book, I decided to go into aerospace... currently in my third year.

Defiant Heretic

Oh, damn. I thought this was a signup list.

GH

Or at least a link to a signup list. Oh well...

Oxymoron

I think that we are very, very far from solving the problems colonisation of space or other worlds poses.

1.) Humans are not well adapted physically to zero-g. Rotating cylinders a la 2001 are nice in fiction, in reality, coriolis force causes some problems that makes running round pretty hard. The degeneration of muscle and bone is going to be a big problem, too.

2.) Humans are not well adapted psychologically for life in space. Lack of privacy, difficulty with hygiene, problems with medical care and inescapable interpersonal conflict are going to be some big barriers.

3.) Space is hostile to life. Outside the van Allen belts, cosmic radiation is gonna cook you good without serious shielding.

4.) It's difficult to create life support systems. Plants don't grow in zero-g like they do on Earth and the radiation will mutate them over time, so food and oxygen generation are questionable. Waste recycling is an issue - a colony will need to be extremely efficient at turning their piss and shit into something useful. And we might need to get used to the idea of recycling corpses

5.) It is extremely expensive to get sufficient hardware into LEO to mount a colonisation program. And expense = political problems, as NASA well knows. You just ain't gonna persuade Bush et al to part with billions for peaceful research and exploration when he has SDI MkII to pay for.

I don't want to sound negative, but I think it's going to be a while yet before the human race can solve the outstanding problems that colonisation poses.

Answerer

Actually, I think that the natural resources like iron, copper,etc. in Earth are not enough to support a large scale colonization in Space. Perhaps, we can use some kinds of biological lifeforms in place of our diminishing metal resources.

enigma555

The amount of metal in a single 1km long metallic asteroid is more than we mine in 100 years. The value of one of those things, multiplying in the $20,000 per kilo you're saving by not bringing it out of Earth's gravity well, is more than $1quadrillion.

The only problem is either getting it to a place where we can make stuff with it or getting a place where we can make stuff with it out to it.

Oh, and the high chance of catastrophic failure.

Alonzo Fyfe

Economically, a "savings" is the difference between what you would actually pay and either (1) what you would otherwise be willing to pay, or (2) the cost of the next best substitute, whichever is less.

The $20,000/kg figure is only relevant if it is the lesser of the two figures.

Richard

enigma555

The cost to bring anything out of earth's gravity well aboard a chemical rocket is ~$20,000 per kilo. That would be the next best substitute, since there is no other way to get anything there.