I thought one of the points of this maillist is that we don't have to pin our hopes on finding a verdant planet like Earth in another solar system.

I know, it's just a thought experiment. I'm just saying.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:37 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Happy New Year 2010

Let's do a thought experiment. There are 6.5 billion humans traveling on a million space ships. We land not on a barren planet like Mars, but a verdant planet like Earth. How do we arrange matters through principles of minimize, conserve, reuse and recycle, so as to protect the verdant planet, as well as the teaming billions of humans?

Combs, Mike wrote:

> I thought one of the points of this maillist is that we don't have to
> pin our hopes on finding a verdant planet like Earth in another solar
> system.
>
> I know, it's just a thought experiment. I'm just saying.

I agree. The answer to the original question is easy: we leave the
verdant planet alone, and build space habitats for our 6.5 billion
humans out of whatever rocks and other lifeless junk is flying around
the system.

Best,
- Joe

Joe,

I only wish we could put the idea into practice. Incidentally, this has
raised another doubt in my mind.

Which is more high tech:

1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators, solar
cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the
computer goes out of order.

or

2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at all.
At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the
technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more or
less).

Regards
Selvaraj

2010/1/6 Joe Strout

O'Neill would certainly have come down in favor of 2. He even spoke of habitats designed such that the Amish could live in them and keep them going.

I once felt compelled to add something to my Space Settlement FAQ (http://space.mike-combs.com/spacsetl.htm#terrorist) to the effect that, when thinking of the "life support system", don't think of a building with chugging machines which a terrorist could attack. Instead, think "every green leaf growing in sunlight".

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:20 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Earth II

Joe,

I only wish we could put the idea into practice. Incidentally, this has raised another doubt in my mind.

Which is more high tech:

1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators, solar cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the computer goes out of order.

or

2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at all.
At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more or less).

sraj wrote:

> I only wish we could put the idea into practice.

Why can't we? I think we'll have gazillions of space habitats before we
have the ability to ship 6.5 billion humans in a million spaceships
between the stars.

> Which is more high tech:
>
> 1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators, solar
> cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the
> computer goes out of order.
>
> or
>
> 2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at all.
> At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the
> technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more or
> less).

The former is more high-tech. The latter is harder.

Best,
- Joe

Hash: SHA1

Joe Strout wrote:
> sraj wrote:
>
>> I only wish we could put the idea into practice.
>
> Why can't we? I think we'll have gazillions of space habitats before we
> have the ability to ship 6.5 billion humans in a million spaceships
> between the stars.
>
>> Which is more high tech:
>>
>> 1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators, solar
>> cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the
>> computer goes out of order.
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at all.
>> At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the
>> technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more or
>> less).
>
> The former is more high-tech. The latter is harder.
>

I would have to dispute the definition that the former is more
high-tech. In fact, I would say that the original poster's second
scenario is poorly worded. Instead of "no gadgets at all" I would argue
that the reality is "no gadgets that we know how to use as much more
than clubs". Our current technology is high tech compared to the early
industrial period. That period was high tech compared to older iron age
and its predecessor bronze age technology. However, comparing our
technology to the current biological ecosystem is not a fair comparison.
We have developed our iron/steel/silicon technology from scratch. The
biological systems we have access to are "found" technology that we are
reverse engineering. We are just beginning to turn biology into a
technology we can manipulate using any more than the very crudest
cross-breeding methodologies. The equivalent analogy with mechanical
technology would be if we were relocated to a planet (or other
environment) with a fully functioning molecular nanotechnology based
ecosystem (nanology?) without fully understanding how the underlying
mechanisms work and only the ability to take existing mechanisms and try
to jury rig them to meet our needs and desires. However, our
limitations in our ability to manipulate the existing complex organisms
(or mechanisms in my scenario) does not mean that the underlying biology
or nanotechnology is low tech.

I would have to agree though that the second scenario is harder. In the
second scenario, you have to build (or evolve) the regulatory and
maintenance capabilities into the infrastructure. In the first
scenario, those capabilities exist indirectly through the abilities of
the inhabitants. Just as the still existent Model-T automobiles are
kept in perfect working condition through maintenance, there is no
inherent limitation to the lifespan of a type 1 colony.

Jonathan

> Best,
> - Joe
>
>>> snipped Yahoo group links
>

- -=-=-
... "No person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your
right to grow." - Alice Walker
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAktFbe8ACgkQ9lVwGqYpXfF5KwCfVeqdvORhmI1MQf+KtNmz7cvo
7tYAn3y2uGhZmvVGvVxr43D2akls3BIf
=sjk1

Jonathan,

I don't understand what you mean by my enquiry being 'poorly worded'.

All that I was enquiring was, can we make the space hab large enough, and
with all passive elements. Instead of solar cells for lighting, try to bring
in sunlight directly. Next load the space hab with soil, water and create
proper thermal conditions so that grass and tree can grow, goats can thrive;
throw in a few predators so that the population of goats will be controlled
... etc ... etc..

Remove humans from the scene. Design such a robust system that this space
hab can thrive on its own for a thousand years. Having confidently made such
a design, next we can now think of habitats for humans in the very same
environment.

Your take on biotechnology is interesting, but that was not my question.

Regards
Selvaraj

2010/1/7 Jonathan Lee

> From: Combs, Mike
> O'Neill would certainly have come down in favor of 2. He
> even spoke of habitats designed such that the Amish could
> live in them and keep them going.
>
> I once felt compelled to add something to my Space Settlement
> FAQ (http://space.mike-combs.com/spacsetl.htm#terrorist) to
> the effect that, when thinking of the "life support system",
> don't think of a building with chugging machines which a
> terrorist could attack. Instead, think "every green leaf
> growing in sunlight".

While I'm sure the concrete and steel/carbon-allotropes could keep going for
a few thousand years... What about the 'glass'? Either as massive windows,
or fiberoptics, some part of it is going to be exposed to the deep space
enviroment. If it gets cloudy (micrometorite pitting or plain dirt) for any
reason, then the sunlight gets blocked and the leaves will fail.

Even if you replaced the glass with some of the hardier aluminium
derivatives, isn't the lifetime of a low tech colony going to be limited to
the lifetime of the glass it's made from? (And likely several other things)
Beyond that you need space suits and/or cleaning robots at a minimum.

A civilisation of colonies could probably maintain the required industrial
base, but a single colony?

John

> While I'm sure the concrete and steel/carbon-allotropes could keep going for
> a few thousand years... What about the 'glass'? Either as massive windows,
> or fiberoptics, some part of it is going to be exposed to the deep space
> enviroment. If it gets cloudy (micrometorite pitting or plain dirt) for any
> reason, then the sunlight gets blocked and the leaves will fail.

If this is a cause for concern, then I would recommend the Bernal Sphere design. In that configuration, straight-line paths to the windows are not allowed. That's done to reduce the amount of cosmic rays getting through, but it would also have the effect of greatly reducing fogging due to micrometeorite bombardment.

http://ssi.org/assets/images/Ch08p125.gif

Regards,

Mike Combs

Combs, Mike wrote:

> If this is a cause for concern, then I would recommend the Bernal Sphere
> design. In that configuration, straight-line paths to the windows are
> not allowed. That's done to reduce the amount of cosmic rays getting
> through, but it would also have the effect of greatly reducing fogging
> due to micrometeorite bombardment.

But *something* is first in line in the optical path. Mirrors will
cloud just as readily as glass, I think.

Best,
- Joe

A good point. Still, mirrors would be much less expensive (and easier) to periodically replace than windows.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Strout

But *something* is first in line in the optical path. Mirrors will
cloud just as readily as glass, I think.

Best,
- Joe

Hash: SHA1

Selvaraj,

What I mean by poorly worded is your insistence that there wouldn't be
an "gadgets" in the second colony. I understood your meaning of limited
or no mechanical technology. However, what you do not seem to recognize
is that biological organisms (machines) you are referring to as "grass",
"trees", "goats", etc, are some of the most complex mechanisms on this
planet. Additionally, balancing the interdependencies between organisms
is very hard. Life on earth (the ecosystem) is not now and has never
been static. Even without interference from man, many many species of
plants and animals have evolved, lived, died and gone extinct. The more
complex any system or system of systems (ecology) is, the more subject
it is to chaotic instabilities. Theoretically, it is not impossible to
design a dynamically stable system, just very hard. Trying to predict
that the system will remain stable or only change within certain
limitations over a thousand year time span is beyond our capabilities at
this time. The more complex an organism is, the more adaptable it is
and the more likely it is to respond in hard-to-predict ways to any
change in its environment. Combining a variety of these complex
organisms into an even more complex ecosystem where they compete,
cooperate and prey on one another raises the difficulty even further.

Jonathan

sraj wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> I don't understand what you mean by my enquiry being 'poorly worded'.
>
> All that I was enquiring was, can we make the space hab large enough, and
> with all passive elements. Instead of solar cells for lighting, try to bring
> in sunlight directly. Next load the space hab with soil, water and create
> proper thermal conditions so that grass and tree can grow, goats can thrive;
> throw in a few predators so that the population of goats will be controlled
> ... etc ... etc..
>
> Remove humans from the scene. Design such a robust system that this space
> hab can thrive on its own for a thousand years. Having confidently made such
> a design, next we can now think of habitats for humans in the very same
> environment.
>
> Your take on biotechnology is interesting, but that was not my question.
>
> Regards
> Selvaraj
>
> 2010/1/7 Jonathan Lee
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> Joe Strout wrote:
>>> sraj wrote:
>>>
>>>> I only wish we could put the idea into practice.
>>> Why can't we? I think we'll have gazillions of space habitats before we
>>> have the ability to ship 6.5 billion humans in a million spaceships
>>> between the stars.
>>>
>>>> Which is more high tech:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators,
>> solar
>>>> cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the
>>>> computer goes out of order.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at
>> all.
>>>> At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the
>>>> technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more
>> or
>>>> less).
>>> The former is more high-tech. The latter is harder.
>>>
>> I would have to dispute the definition that the former is more
>> high-tech. In fact, I would say that the original poster's second
>> scenario is poorly worded. Instead of "no gadgets at all" I would argue
>> that the reality is "no gadgets that we know how to use as much more
>> than clubs". Our current technology is high tech compared to the early
>> industrial period. That period was high tech compared to older iron age
>> and its predecessor bronze age technology. However, comparing our
>> technology to the current biological ecosystem is not a fair comparison.
>> We have developed our iron/steel/silicon technology from scratch. The
>> biological systems we have access to are "found" technology that we are
>> reverse engineering. We are just beginning to turn biology into a
>> technology we can manipulate using any more than the very crudest
>> cross-breeding methodologies. The equivalent analogy with mechanical
>> technology would be if we were relocated to a planet (or other
>> environment) with a fully functioning molecular nanotechnology based
>> ecosystem (nanology?) without fully understanding how the underlying
>> mechanisms work and only the ability to take existing mechanisms and try
>> to jury rig them to meet our needs and desires. However, our
>> limitations in our ability to manipulate the existing complex organisms
>> (or mechanisms in my scenario) does not mean that the underlying biology
>> or nanotechnology is low tech.
>>
>> I would have to agree though that the second scenario is harder. In the
>> second scenario, you have to build (or evolve) the regulatory and
>> maintenance capabilities into the infrastructure. In the first
>> scenario, those capabilities exist indirectly through the abilities of
>> the inhabitants. Just as the still existent Model-T automobiles are
>> kept in perfect working condition through maintenance, there is no
>> inherent limitation to the lifespan of a type 1 colony.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>

- -=-=-
... "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich
out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of
any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian
Rogers
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAktH6uoACgkQ9lVwGqYpXfFBUQCfasS0HW34NOpS82xkUwHBrGsC
AhsAnitAIUJHLHwQHKiRrYbPWEU3mZU6
=W8HH

Jonathan,

You are right that natural systems are very complex. My feeling however is,
if we could make a Hab say 100 Km in diameter, load it with soil, water,
trees, all kinds of living things, bugs and bacteria and find some way to
create natural rainfall, the living matter would probably figure out how to
create their own balance. It is our trying to create the balance that would
be more difficult.

A sufficiently large hab is important, I don't know whether a hab 5 Km in
diameter would do the trick.

Regards

Selvaraj

2010/1/9 Jonathan Lee