The next step towards space colonization should try to confirm that it is indeed possible for humans to put up infrastructure in space where they can keep themselves occupied and form lasting social groups. The ambience they create should be such that they feel like staying there rather than hurrying back to earth.
1. Create human settlements on the Moon. There should be at least three such settlements, operating independently, so that they can try out different ideas and create a feeling of community. Each settlement should be spacious and accommodate from 100 to 1000 people.
2. Set up minimum facilities on the Moon and aim to create three space habs, holding 1000 people each.
The experiment with Biosphere 2 seems to indicate that there should be plenty of vegetation to ensure adequate oxygen supply. So any containment (which will have to be hermetically sealed, naturally) should be really spacious.
The question is whether it will be cheaper to have the settlements on the Moon, or in Space Habs?
Selvaraj
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
> that it is indeed possible for humans to put up infrastructure
> in space where they can keep themselves occupied and form
> lasting social groups. The ambience they create should be such
> that they feel like staying there rather than hurrying back to earth.
I just got through making a similar point on sci.space.policy. I was
arguing with somebody that even if it's true that nobody short of a Bill
Gates could afford a house in the first space settlement, there was hope
that large corporations might take care of the housing for the first
generation of space workers in order to reduce employee turnover. I was
comparing the space worker who lives 5 or 6 years in a ISS-type space
module and then retires to Earth so that he can "get back to his life"
versus a worker in Island One who might well perceive that his "life" is
there in orbit.
> The question is whether it will be cheaper to have the
> settlements on the Moon, or in Space Habs?
That's the $10,000 dollar question, isn't it? Throughout the space
advocacy community, everybody "knows" it will be much cheaper to start
on planetary (or at least lunar) surfaces than in space because such
surfaces are "easier" than free space. Some even argue that Mars will
be the cheapest location for the first settlement beyond Earth. I think
that perhaps good arguments can be made about availability of resources,
but those cost savings will have to be weighed against the additional
costs of operating at a much greater distance from Earth.
Me, I still tend to favor the old High Frontier plan. Certainly start
with a modest moonbase, but concentrate industrial activity in orbit
where it can benefit from constant availability of solar power. Defer
significant lunar industrialization to a later point when end products
intended for use on the lunar surface are desired.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Re Sraj's:
and
The next step towards space colonization should try to confirm
that it is indeed possible for humans to put up infrastructure in
space where they can keep themselves occupied and form
lasting social groups. The ambience they create should be such
that they feel like staying there rather than hurrying back to
earth.
I agree with Mike re starting modestly on the moon.
It's true that humans are known for being very "adaptable"
but I think working at 1/6th G will make the creation of "ambience"
and " lasting social groups" a rather dubious enterprise, in fact it
is likely to be annoying enough to make "hurrying back to earth"
a very desirable scenario.
I would rather see a modest Stanford Torus, or even an immodest
Dumb-bell with full gravity for this type of experimentation.
And I suspect it would be a good idea to vet and train future space
workers and colonists in a "Biosphere" type setting before sending
them off-$-$ into space.
RKH
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hardman
> future space workers and colonists in a "Biosphere"
> type setting before sending them off-$-$ into space.
And hopefully a Biosphere-type-setting more concerned with the
practicalities of efficiently supporting humans rather than
philosophically-motivated desires to recreate in microcosm every diverse
biome on Earth. The former is a far more reachable near-term goal than
the latter.
Regards,
Mike Combs
I agree, Mike. That was one of the three main
problems with the BiosphereII project, a lack of focus
- rather than tring to make an ark containing multiple
different environments, what is needed is only that
which will support keeping humans alive. The other
two problems with BiosphereII were architectural.
lots of windows, allowing sunlight in. This meant
that quantification of the energy input was very
difficult if not impossible. If another Biosphere
project is done, they should do it without windows,
and just use artificial lighting and electrical power,
metering it to figure out exactly how much energy is
required to keep X number of people alive.
Second, they didn't wait for the concrete to
completely cure before they moved plants and animals
and people inside. They found out the hard way that
curing concrete absorbs oxygen. That's probably the
most useful result of the BiosphereII experiment, and
a mistake that should not be repeated.
Ed Minchau
http://robot_guy.blogspot.com
--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:
While most people consider Biosphere II a failure, it is good to remember
that in spite of making a lot of big mistakes, they were able to maintain
closure (or something very close) for over a year on the first try. That's
quite an accomplishment in my book.
particularly if emergency resupply is no more than a few days or weeks
away. In other words, colonies in Earth orbit should be able to run closed
biospheres with only the usual problems, not anything horrendous.
At 07:56 AM 5/10/2006, you wrote:
While Biosphere II type facilities are essential for confirming the
technical parameters, and doing stress tests on Humans, we can obtain a lot
of mileage by collating all the information on indoor facilities currently
available all over the globe. In Scandinavian countries for instance they
are probably forced to stay indoors for half the year, how do they cope?
There are indoor beaches I believe in Japan, how good is the simulation? Lot
of chickens and other animals are raised indoors, and there is lot of
criticism that these are not as good as free-ranging animals. Why so? Can't
high quality greenhouses be constructed where animals are as healthy as
being out of doors?
farm right in the middle of Tokyo. The facility is underground and all
kinds of items are grown under artificial light. Part of the goal of this
facility seems to be to make city dwellers aware that there is something
called agriculture. Many folks may be thinking that it is the vending
machine which produces milk : - ) They had their own sets of problems
apparently, like when they found out that the paddy that was growing was not
too healthy. An old farmer set the scientists right, pointing out, that out
of doors the wind sways the stalks helping the paddy to grow up strong. They
now stroke the plants : - )
By the time we finish putting up habs in Moon orbit, for every $ invested we
will get back 5$, which will nourish the global economy.
Selvaraj
From: "Al Globus"
While most people consider Biosphere II a failure, it is good to remember
that in spite of making a lot of big mistakes, they were able to maintain
closure (or something very close) for over a year on the first try. That's
quite an accomplishment in my book.
It suggests that building closed biospheres is not all that hard,
particularly if emergency resupply is no more than a few days or weeks
away. In other words, colonies in Earth orbit should be able to run closed
biospheres with only the usual problems, not anything horrendous.
At 07:56 AM 5/10/2006, you wrote:
personally i dont understand how it could be a failure in any
measure. part of the intent was to find out what we dont know about
making a completely self-sustained enviroment. they learned that they
dont want to have inhabited until the concrete sets or to have enough
co2 and o2 before hand to compensate. they did learn a lot of things
and found things that no one had expected to have an effect, did have
effects. now they can make a better one or we can move it into space.
imagine making bs2 on the moon, and learning what they learned.