Hello! I'm writing a story in which a sizable population lives in
O'Neill cylinders. I've found all kinds of helpful info on the 'net
about the population that can be supported, what kinds of crops should
be grown, and rotation rates. What I haven't seen is any suggestion
(beyond one involving robots) of how many people would be required for
the various essential functions on the station. Approximately how
many people would be needed for farming, maintenance and space station
control? Does anyone have any ideas or could someone point me in the
direction of a website that gives those kinds of numbers? Thanks in
advance. -- Felicia
> From: feliciapanixcom
> Hello! I'm writing a story in which a sizable population lives in
> O'Neill cylinders.
might want to read up on maintinance staff requirements for those and scale
up. Thing is most of your questions depend strongly on technology and design
choices of the designer/author. If your robitics technology is very
advanced, an island 4 colony might only require a core 'crew' of 100 people.
If you're setting it back in the 1980s, then obviously you're going to need
a lot more staff. You also need to decide how kind your universe is to such
vast space structures. The more plot-related accidents or misadventures you
want to build in the more crew you will need. Unless you want to write about
a rundown colony which can't afford a full crew...
Crops: Wheat for bread & cerial. Soya for protien. Fruit and vegitables;
which might also be grown in allotments in the main cylinder. Spices are
also a strong possibility, though only in the farming rings. Smells in space
are a big problem. You don't want the entire habitat to start smelling of
curry. I'd recomend mindless-meat production techniques for any carnivorous
food requirements for various health & volume related efficiences.
Space station control: Ideally 0. I mean your station isn't going anywhere
is it? ;) In practice control would consist of managing maintinance and
managing external contracts/agreements. Any civil service needs of the
population might also fall under this heading. Services like
telecommunications or health-care might/might not depending on your social
structure. Look up countries in the right population range and read about
their governments.
It's not just a case that all the answers are 'how long is a piece of
string' but your questions are a little vague too. O'Neils can very in
physical size and population by several orders of magnitude. The kind of
social structure and age of the habitate also make it difficult to tell you
what you need to know.
Possibily the best thing to do is forget the facts (which I'm not sure exist
in the detail you want at all) and make up whatever figures fit your story
best. Or you could tell us a little more about the particular O'Neil you had
in mind... ;)
John
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot."
wrote:
> > From: feliciapanixcom
> > Hello! I'm writing a story in which a sizable population lives in
> > O'Neill cylinders.
>
Have to agree that we do not have enough information - Could assume
that you have enough people to do whatever as a cylinder has a
potentially large population base and would need civil services and
everything else required with the associated population base - what
kind of crops are grown - some special crops are very high value and
manpower intensive - what is the political/ economic/ social
background of the story? - (example - the colony that climate controls
for the production of your morning coffee(very manpower intensive)for
delivery to other colonies that prefer a different climate) - can you
expand your request using some of your story?
I'm assuming each cylinder is 32 km long and 3.2 km in
radius. They rotate once every two minutes and are set up
as ballistically coupled pairs. The initial population of
each colony pair is 500,000 people of diverse racial and
social backgrounds. There are six extrasolar colonies
within 20 light years of Earth, all set up to ensure human
survival when it looks like Earth might be facing a comet
impact. I'm assuming the existence of robotic workers for
space mining and construction, but not for farming and
other relatively safe professions. My story takes place
within the first 70 years after the founding of these
colonies (some of the colonies are very young, some much
older). Some luxuries may be grown for trade, but
generally anything beyond the necessities are not grown.
While I have seen many websites that talk about colonies
raising animals for food, I think that is a luxury that
they don't have. However, I expect they have aquaculture
and hydroponics. I'm assuming technological advancement
in farming practices, but to start out with, I'd like to
come up with labor statistics using our current level of
technology for farming (needs to be sustainable and a
vegetarian - plus fish - diet) and minimal imports and
exports. I know it is hard to guess at what they would
need. My main concern is that I don't so grossly over or
underestimate my numbers that someone reading the story
would balk. Thanks!
-- Felicia
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Felicia" wrote:
> I'm assuming each cylinder is 32 km long and 3.2 km in
> radius. They rotate once every two minutes and are set up
> as ballistically coupled pairs. The initial population of
> each colony pair is 500,000 people of diverse racial and
> social backgrounds. There are six extrasolar colonies
> within 20 light years of Earth, all set up to ensure human
> survival when it looks like Earth might be facing a comet
> impact. I'm assuming the existence of robotic workers for
> space mining and construction, but not for farming and
> other relatively safe professions. My story takes place
> within the first 70 years after the founding of these
> colonies (some of the colonies are very young, some much
> older). Some luxuries may be grown for trade, but
> generally anything beyond the necessities are not grown.
> While I have seen many websites that talk about colonies
> raising animals for food, I think that is a luxury that
> they don't have. However, I expect they have aquaculture
> and hydroponics. I'm assuming technological advancement
> in farming practices, but to start out with, I'd like to
> come up with labor statistics using our current level of
> technology for farming (needs to be sustainable and a
> vegetarian - plus fish - diet) and minimal imports and
> exports. I know it is hard to guess at what they would
> need. My main concern is that I don't so grossly over or
> underestimate my numbers that someone reading the story
> would balk. Thanks!
> -- Felicia
>> >
> >
mining would be an item external to the colony - they would be
interested in manufacturing and construction - with the small number
of colonies in such a large area we would have to assume a very
major degree of self sufficiency - do you have some method of
transportation and/or communication that is FTL - otherwise the
other colonies would have no influence on each other - they would
just be like lifeboats on a very large sea.To have trade you need
someone to trade with - on a reasonable time scale(1-2 years
prefered maximum). for argiculture you would have advantages of not
having a weed problem and low disease incidence( would be bad for a
colony if biologicals were used against food production.) probably
possible for 1-2% of the population to be involved in food
production. Major employers would be construction( new colony
shells), medical sciences, engineering, - would there be external
zero gravity manufacturing centers in close proximity - they would
require scientific inputs to make new alloys and ideas. this could
be expanded to make the bonded pair the center of a large domain
with prospectors, salvage, transport to outposts and all the other
things that make expansion possible.
the future.
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Felicia
> raising animals for food, I think that is a luxury that
> they don't have.
Even if economics rule out the raising of cattle (and I would only
expect that to be the case in the early years of space settlement),
please be open-minded about the raising of rabbits and goats. Keith and
Carolyn Henson wrote about this in the early days of space settlement
discussion.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Sometimes its easy to believe that we know all about the human body and how it works and what it needs...
It would seem best to try and minimize that stress where possible, by having as much in the nutrition dept be the 'same' as what humans have had for millennia... So much is being discovered about micro quantities of minerals, vitamins and other nutrients that it keeps anyone from really knowing WHAT is essential from our food...which already has been subverted.
So perhaps NOT having animals products for food is not really a choice... or at least not anymore of a choice for long term health than eliminating air or water, regardless of how inconvenient animal products may be.
Just gonna have to suck it up and figure out someway to truly replicate as much as possible the human environment.
From: Combs, Mike
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Question about production numbers
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Felicia
> While I have seen many websites that talk about colonies
> raising animals for food, I think that is a luxury that
> they don't have.
Even if economics rule out the raising of cattle (and I would only
expect that to be the case in the early years of space settlement),
please be open-minded about the raising of rabbits and goats. Keith and
Carolyn Henson wrote about this in the early days of space settlement
discussion.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
panamabob@...
> truly replicate as much as possible the human environment.
I agree totally. I see so many proposals for settlements beyond the
Earth which make rather radical assumptions about what people can easily
adapt to (egs: food will be restructured Spirulina algae, people will do
just fine under artificial illumination, 1/3 G is OK long-term, people
don't really need wide open spaces overhead so lets put in 50 decks for
as many more people). I've even seen people argue that ET settlement
will require radical changes to such fundamental aspects of the human
condition as methods of reproduction.
I still think most highly of the High Frontier proposals, and partly
because of all of them, this is the set of proposals which make the most
conservative assumptions. By that I mean assumptions which try to
minimize unforeseen problems by engineering, to as great an extent as is
practical, the same lifestyle and way of living as we presently know for
a fact works here on Earth. About the only assumption we're asked to
make is that centrifugal force can be a workable substitute for gravity.
I started to include the assumption that a 1/2 atmosphere with twice the
percentage of oxygen will be OK, but we can even back away from that if
unexpected problems should arise (O'Neill's original "Physics Today"
calculations assumed normal, sea-level pressure air). Zubrin and
Savage's assumptions in this area are far less conservative.
I think later generations of space settlers might well start to
experiment with markedly different methods of doing things like
providing food or illumination, and might well enjoy the efficiency
improvements cited by some of the promoters of the more radical ideas.
But I expect the first few generations of space settlements to have
enough problems as it is without trying to invent radical new ways for
humans to live with which we've had no prior validating experience.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Those are good points. North America consumes far more
meat per capita than other regions of the world
(http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/agriculture-food/variable-193.html)
so most people in my story would not be used to eating
large amounts of meat. Fish, goat and chicken would
probably work for making up the meat they did eat. I'd be
more inclined towards sheep than rabbit, since they also
produce milk, but sheep are fairly high maintenance. On
the other hand, in a controlled environment, they may be
okay.
-- Felicia
Well said Mike,
One of the interesting quantifiable issues is brix (in regard to the amount of solids in vital fluids using a refractometer) and other such things. Using a refractometer one can examine juice or sap from a plant and even milk to compare the density, which seems to compare well to the amount of nutrients.
Other quantifying methods may seem like New Age mumbo jumbo, and alternative well being beliefs, but there IS something there and no amount of pooh-poohing can make it go away.
Poor and skewed soil conditions, (i.e. low minerals and other nutrients and low micro organisms that break down minerals into a chelated form that plants can absorb) has dropped the quality of foods in recent years... discoveries that intensive commercial fertilizers encourage visibly accelerated growth but no strength or depth of plants or nutritional make-up, which is the reason to eat in the first place.
Simple processes that seemed helpful like synthetic milk production hormones also burn up the lifespan of dairy cows, create anomalies in chemical makeup of the milk, which now seem to be detrimental to humans. Even pasteurization diminishes original nutrients in milks that have to be re introduced afterwards artificially, like vitamin A & D and calcium enhancers. Homogenization seems to break fat globules to a size that human digestion can not cope well with.
Anti-biotics in chickens, beef and farmed fish have create other hazards for human health.
It's almost funny, but it seems that all the improvements we have made to our food supply has been found to be not quite what was bargained for....as far as nutrition/health goes. Yes, these changes have made it more convenient for intense volume production, mechanization, shipping, shelf life and more... but the point about eating was not profitability, but rather good living.
Can we survive for some time on vitamin pill popping and protein drinks? Possibly, short term, but it seems that long term our organism doesn't do well,,,so what's the point?
Some folks may volunteer and accept the trade off in their health and longevity for the adventure of living in a new Spacer world... but what kind of real long term solution is that for us as a specie? Are we willing to risk our lives like seafaring pioneers of old that succumbed to simple scurvy because vitamin C wasn't recognized?
Perhaps through some gene modification (God help us) we can create a new "homo spacious" that can thrive on different environment than humans have become use to over the million year evolutionary process....or maybe not.
To attract folks to the new off-world, perhaps we should be looking to enhance the quality of life, almost Eden-like, and not try and "make-do"... (barring any super-disaster that reduces the options to adapt or extinction the only choice).
This of course does make the creation of new artificial environments far more complex and costly...and may push back the starts of extra terrestrial life for humans... Perhaps it will be a sacrifice in the short term, just like sailors of old risked, in the hopes of eventually getting it right.
Who want to be the first guinea pig?
:-)
From: Combs, Mike
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Question about production numbers
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
panamabob@...
> Just gonna have to suck it up and figure out someway to
> truly replicate as much as possible the human environment.
I agree totally. I see so many proposals for settlements beyond the
Earth which make rather radical assumptions about what people can easily
adapt to (egs: food will be restructured Spirulina algae, people will do
just fine under artificial illumination, 1/3 G is OK long-term, people
don't really need wide open spaces overhead so lets put in 50 decks for
as many more people).
On 6/14/05, Combs, Mike wrote:
(...)
> Even if economics rule out the raising of cattle (and I would only
> expect that to be the case in the early years of space settlement),
> please be open-minded about the raising of rabbits and goats. Keith and
> Carolyn Henson wrote about this in the early days of space settlement
> discussion.
(...)
commercially grown for food in Brazil, see
http://www.naturalsul.com.br/capivar1.htm) could also conceivably be
"portable" enough. Also, leaving mammalians aside, fish, shrimps and
chicken are an automatic choice for portable animal protein.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Felicia
>
> > While I have seen many websites that talk about colonies
> > raising animals for food, I think that is a luxury that
> > they don't have.
>
> Even if economics rule out the raising of cattle (and I would only
> expect that to be the case in the early years of space settlement),
> please be open-minded about the raising of rabbits and goats. Keith and
> Carolyn Henson wrote about this in the early days of space settlement
> discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
got loose it could be messy. No natural enemies as was the case in
Australia.
Pretty soon your space settlement could be overrun with rabbits.
Not to mention overgrazed.
The Dexter cow, a smaller variety of cattle, and ducks could also be
of interest.
I did a fanzine article about 30 years ago on organic farming in space
settlements.
Rick Brooks
Most shellfish and some crustaceans are primary feeders which can convert algae directly into edible seafood.
Shellfish growth can be very rapid when an abundant, high-quality food supply is available. Oysters can double their weight every 30 days.
The question is what micro nutrients are required that occur naturally in seawater, but that would have to be replicated on an artificial world?
Looks like we may need to do more research into ecologies of the oceans and land, and the likes of tierra pretta, or self replicating rich soil, complete with its micro organisms that somehow do this process.
[1]P. R. Walne, Culture of Bivalve Molluscs, (Farnham: Fishing News Books), 1974, p. 176.
[1]David Pimentel, et al, "Energy and Land Constraints in Food Protein Production," Science, Nov. 21, 1975. p. 757
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
> If a breeding pair got loose it could be messy.
> No natural enemies as was the case in Australia.
>
> Pretty soon your space settlement could be overrun
> with rabbits.
>
> Not to mention overgrazed.
Remember that one advantage of space settlements is that we can
segregate the farming activities (and industrial activities) from the
living area. One could arrange for it to be very difficult for a rabbit
to get from the agricultural rings of a Bernal Sphere (for example) to
the habitat sphere.
Regards,
Mike Combs
On 6/14/05, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> Who want to be the first guinea pig?
>
> :-)
(...)
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> panamabob@S...
>
> > Just gonna have to suck it up and figure out someway to
> > truly replicate as much as possible the human environment.
>
> I agree totally. I see so many proposals for settlements beyond the
> Earth which make rather radical assumptions about what people can easily
> adapt to (egs: food will be restructured Spirulina algae, people will do
> just fine under artificial illumination, 1/3 G is OK long-term, people
> don't really need wide open spaces overhead so lets put in 50 decks for
> as many more people). I've even seen people argue that ET settlement
> will require radical changes to such fundamental aspects of the human
> condition as methods of reproduction.
>
> I still think most highly of the High Frontier proposals, and partly
> because of all of them, this is the set of proposals which make the most
> conservative assumptions. By that I mean assumptions which try to
> minimize unforeseen problems by engineering, to as great an extent as is
> practical, the same lifestyle and way of living as we presently know for
> a fact works here on Earth. About the only assumption we're asked to
> make is that centrifugal force can be a workable substitute for gravity.
> I started to include the assumption that a 1/2 atmosphere with twice the
> percentage of oxygen will be OK, but we can even back away from that if
> unexpected problems should arise (O'Neill's original "Physics Today"
> calculations assumed normal, sea-level pressure air). Zubrin and
> Savage's assumptions in this area are far less conservative.
>
> I think later generations of space settlers might well start to
> experiment with markedly different methods of doing things like
> providing food or illumination, and might well enjoy the efficiency
> improvements cited by some of the promoters of the more radical ideas.
> But I expect the first few generations of space settlements to have
> enough problems as it is without trying to invent radical new ways for
> humans to live with which we've had no prior validating experience.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
settlements will not work.
It's best to set things up as conservatively as possible at first.
Especially when there will be a lot of money involved.
But people being impatient, there will be some wild attempts and
spectacular failures in the early going.
I see the most probable variant as low gravity settlements. Less
strain on the heart could well mean longer lives. Low gravity
retirement homes could be a major reason for building space settlements.
My first published SF story was in SCI-FANT, a micro-fiche magazine.
The editor-publisher was convinced that space settlements were much
too vulnerable. He advocated digging in on the moon.
We had some disagreements about it. Which probably didn't help my
getting published there.
Rick Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
>
> > Rabbits would need a certain amount of attention.
> > If a breeding pair got loose it could be messy.
> > No natural enemies as was the case in Australia.
> >
> > Pretty soon your space settlement could be overrun
> > with rabbits.
> >
> > Not to mention overgrazed.
>
> Remember that one advantage of space settlements is that we can
> segregate the farming activities (and industrial activities) from the
> living area. One could arrange for it to be very difficult for a rabbit
> to get from the agricultural rings of a Bernal Sphere (for example) to
> the habitat sphere.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
which stimulates plant growth.
I was interested in alcohol fuels. Output about 1/3 alcohol fom the
sugars and starches, 1/3 Distiller's Dried Grains and Solubles which
was mainly used as cattle feed, and 1/3 CO2 used in greenhouses.
With all the solar power available, I doubt alcohol fuels would be
necessary.
But with space settlements, I prefer a belt and suspenders mentallity.
When I was an engineer, I was taught to calculate safety factors, then
up them by 50 % to allow for any factor left out.
I would expect the early space settlements to be way over-engineered.
Rick Brooks
Yea, in theory, but if you are faced with a guaranteed fore-shortened life span, aches, pains, teeth falling out, eyes failing and just general sickness and malaise, would one STILL be so gung-ho for long term commitment to the lifestyle?
Lets just see how we can make a doable environment, even if it takes a little longer and a more comprehensive plan.
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Question about production numbers
On 6/14/05, panamabob@...
wrote:
(...)
> Who want to be the first guinea pig?
>
> :-)
(...)
For starts, everyone in this list, I think. :-)
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> On 6/14/05, panamabob@s...
> wrote:
> (...)
> > Who want to be the first guinea pig?
> >
> > :-)
> (...)
>
> For starts, everyone in this list, I think. :-)
had arthritis for over 40 years. A low gravity habitat could add
years to my life, as well as make life easier.
Rick Brooks
On 6/14/05, panamabob@...
wrote:
> Yea, in theory, but if you are faced with a guaranteed fore-shortened life span, aches, pains, teeth falling out, eyes failing and just general sickness and malaise, would one STILL be so gung-ho for long term commitment to the lifestyle?
>
> :-)
(...)
and stuff. :-)
With no disrespect intended Rich, perhaps better nutrition and lifestyle would do more for your condition than micro gravity... and easier to get in the "now".
And my dear Rich, you state your age like you are at the end of your life's expectancy...64 is hardly the point to consider giving it up! Not with so many exciting events and discoveries just about within our reach! Medicine has found that scotch whiskey is better for you than red wine... as also are dark beers. :-))
Doing some research on old grave sites has suggested that mortality risk was greatest only in babyhood, and in high risk occupations or locations where wars were common. The rest of folks seemed to have ripe old age. The stats on average age of people in the past (as a suggestion of population health) being in the 40's comes from factoring in HIGH infant mortality, which to me would skew the mode of real ages past babyhood.
One economic stat that is saddening is that approx. 3% of the USA population will be OK financially in retirement... which doesn't sound like it would be much chance for your average geriatric having the funds to get themselves a residence off-earth, even considering launch costs dropping to $1,500 a lbs. or $240,000 for an adult of 160 lbs.
All things being equal, one would think that economics would dictate placing into Space humans who are in as healthy a state as possible to be able to get maximum productivity from them over the longest timeframe. It would seem that folks with superior mental knowledge or experience alone could be accessed more cheaply through telecommunications.
:-(
From: Richard
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:53 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Question about production numbers
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> On 6/14/05, panamabob@s...
> wrote:
> (...)
> > Who want to be the first guinea pig?
> >
> > :-)
> (...)
>
> For starts, everyone in this list, I think. :-)
Not to mention I'm 64, have had a series of minor strokes, and have
had arthritis for over 40 years. A low gravity habitat could add
years to my life, as well as make life easier.
Rick Brooks
Oh contraire my friend... we already know that poor nutrition directly relates to one's teeth falling out, eye muscles weakening creating poor vision, high blood pressure, diabetes 2, strokes, aching joints, nausea and more...
The heroes of Chernobyl were the aircraft pilots who flew in and dumped material to bury the hot reactor, knowing that they would die within days from radiation. They knew they were not taking a risk...they were committing certain suicide.
We also have the biosphere project to get data regarding sustainable environment.
I guess the first pioneers will be young , dumb and full of 'um, vigor! Bullet proof who will shake off the boogey man and know that it won't happen to them...
My concern is what happened to my ancestors from Scotland when they tried to colonize the Darien area of Panama, a failure that brought down the Bank of England and may have directly been responsible for the enslavement Scotland for generations after that.
:-(
You may very well be right. We often don't act intelligently...
Famous last words before something REALLY stupid happens...
" hey look at what I can do...!"
:-))
Lets make the move to Space sustainable and not a short lived adventure for the history books. I would hate that the memory of this endeavor be reduced to a naming a few highschools in memoriam, and some dusty plaque somewhere....
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Question about production numbers
On 6/14/05, panamabob@...
wrote:
> Yea, in theory, but if you are faced with a guaranteed fore-shortened life span, aches, pains, teeth falling out, eyes failing and just general sickness and malaise, would one STILL be so gung-ho for long term commitment to the lifestyle?
>
> :-)
(...)
Since we would be the first ones, we wouldn't know about falling teeth
and stuff. :-)
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
> Less strain on the heart could well mean longer lives.
Yeah, I'd say that's a sure bet for early experimentation. But here's a
good example of the flexibility of the O'Neill approach. If the reality
should turn out the opposite, and lower gravities result in lowered
life-spans while 1.5 or 2 G's turns out to extend them, we can have that
too in a rotating orbital settlement. There's no place in the solar
system with solid ground to stand on where one could live in greater
than 1 G.
> The editor-publisher was convinced that space settlements were
> much too vulnerable. He advocated digging in on the moon.
Yes, there exists that (mistaken, in my opinion) perception. I think
they fail to appreciate a space habitats true nature: basically a
battleship hull surrounded by a 6 foot thick wall of concrete.
Regards,
Mike Combs
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> On 6/14/05, panamabob@s...
> wrote:
> > Yea, in theory, but if you are faced with a guaranteed
fore-shortened life span, aches, pains, teeth falling out, eyes
failing and just general sickness and malaise, would one STILL be so
gung-ho for long term commitment to the lifestyle?
> >
> > :-)
> (...)
>
> Since we would be the first ones, we wouldn't know about falling teeth
> and stuff. :-)
panamabob's comment this morning while eating breakfast. Along with
breakfast, I took two blood pressure pills, and a multivitamin,
Vitamin B-complex, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, and magneseum Zinc mineral
suppliment.
Think of a Space vitamin meneral suppliment that could supply minimum
daily requirements of nearly everything.
And I think if any dietary imbalance came up, flights from Earth would
correct it long before it reached the point panamabob is worried about.
Rick Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> With no disrespect intended Rich, perhaps better nutrition and
lifestyle would do more for your condition than micro gravity... and
easier to get in the "now".
>
> Less gravity may make some of the symptoms seem easier to bear, but
it's doing nothing for the root causes...
>
a major root cause is that I was careless in choosing my ancestors.
Mother's side of the family was riddled with arthritis.
I seriously doubt there is anything that can remove the bone spurs
from my hips and shoulders.
> And my dear Rich, you state your age like you are at the end of your
life's expectancy...64 is hardly the point to consider giving it up!
Not with so many exciting events and discoveries just about within our
reach! Medicine has found that scotch whiskey is better for you than
red wine... as also are dark beers. :-))
>
My spine partly fused in 1975. Spinal calcification has led to
pressure on my sciatic nerve and leads to balance problems. I have
enough trouble staying on my feet without mixing in alcohol.
After 40 years of arthritis, it's hard to keep plugging on. Not to
mention being optimistic about the future.
> Doing some research on old grave sites has suggested that mortality
risk was greatest only in babyhood, and in high risk occupations or
locations where wars were common. The rest of folks seemed to have
ripe old age. The stats on average age of people in the past (as a
suggestion of population health) being in the 40's comes from
factoring in HIGH infant mortality, which to me would skew the mode of
real ages past babyhood.
>
> One economic stat that is saddening is that approx. 3% of the USA
population will be OK financially in retirement... which doesn't
sound like it would be much chance for your average geriatric having
the funds to get themselves a residence off-earth, even considering
launch costs dropping to $1,500 a lbs. or $240,000 for an adult of 160
lbs.
>
> All things being equal, one would think that economics would dictate
placing into Space humans who are in as healthy a state as possible to
be able to get maximum productivity from them over the longest
timeframe. It would seem that folks with superior mental knowledge or
experience alone could be accessed more cheaply through
telecommunications.