I think it will be paraterraformed not terraformed. This means having
domes instead of going to the monumental trouble and waste of trying
to make the entire atmosphere breathable. This offers *many*
advantages over terraforming, not the least of which is it would
allow Mars to be settled incrementally. The domes might start out
"small" and be only a few hundred meters across, but could/would grow
in size to eventually being 100's of kilometers across and enclosing
vast spaces and entire ecosystems, and being almost
indistinguishable from full-blown terraforming with open sky.
oxygen. It's just stuck beneath a gravity well. Using something like
tethers or a mass driver these could be exported to the asteroid belt
which by then may have a thriving and expanding population of humans
of need those materials, eventually.
It also offers good old fashioned real gravity, not simulated gravity
with its attendant coriolis force, and an open sky. This, combined
with a nice pleasant place artificial environment inside a dome,
would make Mars a very desirable tourist destination, for said
tourists living in the near asteroid belt.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "bhn1700" wrote:
William wrote:
> domes instead of going to the monumental trouble and waste of trying
> to make the entire atmosphere breathable. This offers *many*
> advantages over terraforming, not the least of which is it would
> allow Mars to be settled incrementally. The domes might start out
> "small" and be only a few hundred meters across, but could/would grow
> in size to eventually being 100's of kilometers across and enclosing
> vast spaces and entire ecosystems, and being almost
> indistinguishable from full-blown terraforming with open sky.
What about radiation shielding?
> It also offers good old fashioned real gravity, not simulated gravity
> with its attendant coriolis force, and an open sky.
Real gravity, but perhaps not enough of it.
Best,
- Joe
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
> What about radiation shielding?
big of a jump to have dome surfaces that are too. Solar flares and
cosmic rays, now that might be a problem, and might be a technical
hurdle that would have to be overcome.
> Real gravity, but perhaps not enough of it.
I was talking about tourism, not permanent settlement. The staff of
these tourist resorts would have to deal with this either by spending
alot of their time in rotating hubs on the martian surface that could
provide a full 1-g gravity, or by periodically leaving their jobs to
live somewhere that does, so their body can recover.
William wrote:
>
> We have sunglasses now that are UV resistant. I think it's not that
> big of a jump to have dome surfaces that are too. Solar flares and
> cosmic rays, now that might be a problem, and might be a technical
> hurdle that would have to be overcome.
Yes, it was those I was thinking of, not UV. There are only two ways
known to stop cosmic radiation: shielding mass equivalent to a couple
meters of dirt, or magnetic fields. The latter might be possible for a
domed city someday, but it's certainly nontrivial.
> > Real gravity, but perhaps not enough of it.
>
> I was talking about tourism, not permanent settlement.
Gotcha. I agree that for tourism, Martian gravity is plenty (and
probably good fun).
Best,
- Joe
Yes I knew that. Cosmic ray shielding for domes such as these were covered
in The Millenial Project by Marshall Savage, and it's been a number of years
since I read it. About 5 tons of something for each square meter of settlement
area. This could be accomplished by having a layer of water 5 meters thick
inside a double-layered dome surface. The outward force of the interior
atmosphere will keep the weight of the water up. For *big* domes with very high
ceilings over 4 km. high the atmosphere itself can function as the protection.
Thus the biggest technical hurdle would be: getting either the water or (mostly)
nitrogen
to the tune of 5 million tons for each square kilometer of settlement.
Mars has nitrogen in its atmosphere, about 3%, and some think that there's
far more trapped in mineral form under the surface. There's almost certainly
gigatons of water on Mars.
I would agree that the early settlers would be in caves, covered habitats, or domes but 'if' modest terraforming can yield large results why not try for the big one? If it is shown that a half dozen mirrors in polar orbit (perpindicular to the sun) and toward the dark side (due to balancing light pressure), modest CFC production, a few volatile rich asteroids, and black carbon coating of the polar ice caps can add useful amounts of atmosphere, temperature, pressure, radiation protection, even precipitation. Why not go for it?
Of course this depends on how effective the above terraforming processes would be, how much they would cost, how much the difference in costs would be to the settlers on the surface. But I would think it would be worth a look into the benefits because it might produce many with relatively low costs.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:
> It also offers good old fashioned real gravity, not simulated gravity
> with its attendant coriolis force, and an open sky.
Why is a 24-hour day/night cycle so essential? As someone who lives in the
extreme northern latitudes, I know that people and life get along very well
with extended periods of sunlight and darkness. Barrow, Alaska sees two
straight months of sunlight and two straight months of darkness every year.
Why would, say, the moon's 14-earth-day day/night cycle be such a problem?
Humans, animals and plant life are mostly based on the 24 hour cycle. In particular agriculture could have a real problem with 2 weeks of dark and two weeks of light, as there are no serious amounts of agricultural in those latitudes, except perhaps expensive indoor lighted greenhouses. Whereas with a 24 hour light cycle there would be no need for adjustments at all. Also the extra, though small, atmosphere with its subsequent radiation, temperature, CO2 advantages would make greenhouse needs less then on the moon.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Dave Powell wrote:
circadian rhythms do play an important role in Human psychology, but, it's
not all that cut and dried. And, as long as you do most of your living
inside, you have ultimate control over your own day/night cycles anyway.
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon
and Mars
everyone manages to miss the gravity problem and thus the muscle atrophy problem.
On the other hand, rotating asteroids is quite real and feasible.
Phobos and Diemos can be permanently inhabited. Mars Can't.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "bhn1700" wrote:
pan p wrote:
> problem.
>
> Until we have star trek style gravity plating, any ideas about
> inhabiting mars or the moon long term are science fiction pipe dreams.
We don't know that. We have no data about the long-term effects of
levels of gravity between 0 and 1.
> On the other hand, rotating asteroids is quite real and feasible.
We don't know that, either. I rather suspect that if you rotated almost
any asteroid fast enough to produce 1G at the equator, it would simply
break apart. There's no reason to think they're that strong.
Of course, we DO know with some certainty that you could mine asteroids
(and the Moon, etc.) for materials needed to build engineered structures
that produce 1G. But that's different.
> Phobos and Diemos can be permanently inhabited. Mars Can't.
Speculation on both counts. (At least as far as gravity goes.)
Best,
- Joe
Muscle atrophy? day/night cycles?
Of course weightlessness will affect morphology. Good. That's how evolution works. Same with getting rid of circadian cycles. Let 'em go.
Post-terrestrial mean post-human.
www.starlarvae.org
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "pan p" wrote:
>Of course weightlessness will affect morphology. Good. That's how
evolution works. Same with getting rid of circadian >cycles. Let 'em
go.
*******************************
Evolution works by differential death rates, or at the very least, differential procreation rates. So you're OK with putting a large number of humans in a place with high mortality rates and hoping that random genetic variation will, sometime in the next few thousand years, come up with a mutation that will confer better survival rates? This glacial scale of change, and the thousands of lives cut short to get to that change, are OK with you? These people will be willing to die or to give up the chance at procreation in the service of your dream of forced human evolution?
I just think we're at a place where the biological processes that brought us here will no longer suffice. Deliberate genetic modification and biomechanical enhancements will speed up the pace in the short run, but only until such time as our machines take up our torch and become the next phase of evolution. Machines' rate of mutation (modification) is a tiny fraction of ours, their range of physical requirements for survival (temperature, atmosphere, food/energy, gravity, radiation) is much wider than ours, and we're only maybe one human lifetime from making machines that can exceed our reason, dexterity and purposefulness in one practical and cost-effective package. Then they'll be the ones to explore and colonize space, and if we're careful to make them so that they remember and care about us, they'll eventually build what we need for our frail, mass-y bodies and short lives to follow behind them as best we can. There will still be humans who insist on leaving home and striking out in primitive conditions to do it themselves, and they'll be treated with as much amusement and contempt as people who set out to walk across continents or live off the grid and grow or hunt everything they eat. Granted, these eccentrics will be the the only humans left if Apophis comes in for a direct hit on Terra, but the bare facts of physics are that our machines will be our heirs, and our race to evolve to keep up with them will be futile. Post-human will mean non-human, and we better hope they like us enough to keep us around as they explore the galaxy.
Power to the beeple!
Brad
Brad Walsh wrote:
> physics are that our machines will be our heirs, and our race to evolve
> to keep up with them will be futile. Post-human will mean non-human, and
> we better hope they like us enough to keep us around as they explore the
> galaxy.
Not necessarily. We'll probably upload ourselves [1], in which case the
machines will (IMHO) still be human.
But we're wandering pretty far off topic. My understanding of this list
is that it's about O'Neill-style space settlements comfortable for good
old-fashioned 20th-century humans.
Best,
- Joe
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/
>I just think we're at a place where the biological processes that brought us here will no longer suffice. Deliberate genetic modification and biomechanical enhancements will speed up the pace in the short run, but only until >such time as our machines take up our torch and become the next phase of evolution.
From: Brad Walsh
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:02 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
>Of course weightlessness will affect morphology. Good. That's how
evolution works. Same with getting rid of circadian >cycles. Let 'em
go.
>Post-terrestrial mean post-human.
*******************************
Evolution works by differential death rates, or at the very least, differential procreation rates. So you're OK with putting a large number of humans in a place with high mortality rates and hoping that random genetic variation will, sometime in the next few thousand years, come up with a mutation that will confer better survival rates? This glacial scale of change, and the thousands of lives cut short to get to that change, are OK with you? These people will be willing to die or to give up the chance at procreation in the service of your dream of forced human evolution?
I just think we're at a place where the biological processes that brought us here will no longer suffice. Deliberate genetic modification and biomechanical enhancements will speed up the pace in the short run, but only until such time as our machines take up our torch and become the next phase of evolution. Machines' rate of mutation (modification) is a tiny fraction of ours, their range of physical requirements for survival (temperature, atmosphere, food/energy, gravity, radiation) is much wider than ours, and we're only maybe one human lifetime from making machines that can exceed our reason, dexterity and purposefulness in one practical and cost-effective package. Then they'll be the ones to explore and colonize space, and if we're careful to make them so that they remember and care about us, they'll eventually build what we need for our frail, mass-y bodies and short lives to follow behind them as best we can. There will still be humans who insist on leaving home and striking out in primitive conditions to do it themselves, and they'll be treated with as much amusement and contempt as people who set out to walk across continents or live off the grid and grow or hunt everything they eat. Granted, these eccentrics will be the the only humans left if Apophis comes in for a direct hit on Terra, but the bare facts of physics are that our machines will be our heirs, and our race to evolve to keep up with them will be futile. Post-human will mean non-human, and we better hope they like us enough to keep us around as they explore the galaxy.
Power to the beeple!
Brad
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> At the rate our biomedical sciences are developing, and with parallel development in nanotech, I see little reason to assume that there are any insurmountable hurdles to Human guided evolution in the semi-near future. Given that the Human body can be adapted for micro-g (I certainly wouldn't bet money against it), and that suitable materials science developments will make radiation shielding no big deal, I can easily envision a Human diaspora all across the galaxy and beyond, with Humans adapted for the environments that they choose to live in, whether micro-g, rotating (or gravity tech) habitats or gravity wells of widely diverse characteristic and atmosphere. Of course, our machines will both precede and accompany us on these adventures, but I cannot envision any future where Humanity will fail to be center stage in its' own odyssey, and certainly not one in which we will apathetically remain behind while our 'heirs', the machines, go out and colonize the stars.
Brooks
Well, I seriously doubt that we'll be starting to andromeda the day after tomorrow, but I've seen figures indicating that if, once we achieve travel at a significant percentage of lightspeed, mankind populates planets at it's current rate of growth that we could be looking for more room in the milky way within 50,000 years or less. Time dilation effects of near light speed combined with greatly increased longevity from Human medtech by then would make journeys to andromeda or other, nearer galactic swarms doable in acceptable time frames. I simply don't believe that we can ever be stopped if we can get a significant population freed from the planet on a permanent basis. Until then, we, the entire race, live in constant jeopardy.
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 11:44 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> At the rate our biomedical sciences are developing, and with parallel development in nanotech, I see little reason to assume that there are any insurmountable hurdles to Human guided evolution in the semi-near future. Given that the Human body can be adapted for micro-g (I certainly wouldn't bet money against it), and that suitable materials science developments will make radiation shielding no big deal, I can easily envision a Human diaspora all across the galaxy and beyond, with Humans adapted for the environments that they choose to live in, whether micro-g, rotating (or gravity tech) habitats or gravity wells of widely diverse characteristic and atmosphere. Of course, our machines will both precede and accompany us on these adventures, but I cannot envision any future where Humanity will fail to be center stage in its' own odyssey, and certainly not one in which we will apathetically remain behind while our 'heirs', the machines, go out and colonize the stars.
A human diaspora beyond the galaxy? Unless a new paradigm in physics is created or we say, manipulate a star/solar system into a rocket (ie direct a stars energy in one direction) and slingshot out of the galaxy and toward another galaxy. (Which would still take say 100 million years to traverse, and entail fantastic abilities to manipulate a star directly, not to mention keeping the human or robots surrogates on task to keep the star going to the target galaxy.) It is very far out for human endeavor, especially considering how much space in our own galaxy we have to work with.
Brooks
we are agreed on this point.
:)
I suppose FTL discussions are also far off topic.
We don't need a new paradigm in physics, many worlds QM will probably more than suffice, all we need is a way to get to a universe with a much faster light speed or much smaller spatial constant.
Current existing theories allow for FTL using exotic forms of energy
or matter.
Plus, you have me around to explain how other civilizations have solved the problem.
:)
> Post-terrestrial mean post-human.
Maybe space colonization will be like that.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Jopp
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:51 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
Muscle atrophy? day/night cycles?
You don't get what space colonization means. It means leaving the monkey behind.
Of course weightlessness will affect morphology. Good. That's how evolution works. Same with getting rid of circadian cycles. Let 'em go.
Post-terrestrial mean post-human.
www.starlarvae.org
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "pan p" wrote:
No new paradigm needed. The space between the galaxies is not empty.
It has stars distributed throughout intergalactic space. One study
estimates it to be 0.05% of all stars are "stellar outcasts", which
for the Local Group of galaxies would amount to over a billion stars.
Probably more brown dwarfs, free-floating planets, large comets, etc.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. The plasma portion of our blood is very much like
> ocean water. Once biochemistry evolved to function in seawater, moving
> up to the land meant either starting all over again from scratch, or
> just carrying a bit of the ocean along with us.
>
> Maybe space colonization will be like that.
Could be.
I'm sure it's become apparent by now that I fully expect mind uploading
to happen sometime in this century -- quite possibly before we have any
large O'Neill-style space colonies.
But the future is always difficult to see, and I think it prudent to
pursue many different paths of advancement. That means, in our case,
that we should continue to pursue O'Neill style colonies on the
assumption that our biological requirements will be pretty much exactly
what they are now.
If in fact those requirements are reduced or go away, then our
engineering options will expand. But until that happens, we should
assume and plan for pure 20th-century human colonists. We certainly CAN
build colonies for such folk, and that's a very important point. Space
colonization can be done independent of any revolutionary medical or
biotech. So, when making our case, we don't need to (and should not)
bring in any more assumptions the listener may question.
Indeed, if we don't develop radical biotech, we need space colonization
all the more -- it's the only long-term way to ensure survival of humanity.
That's why I'm here, and why I support space colonization in the O'Neill
style, even though I suspect it may prove mostly moot in the long term.
Best,
- Joe
> If in fact those requirements are reduced or go away, then our
> engineering options will expand. But until that happens, we should
> assume and plan for pure 20th-century human colonists. We certainly CAN
> build colonies for such folk, and that's a very important point. Space
> colonization can be done independent of any revolutionary medical or
> biotech. So, when making our case, we don't need to (and should not)
> bring in any more assumptions the listener may question.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Strout
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 9:18 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
Combs, Mike wrote:
> > Post-terrestrial mean post-human.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. The plasma portion of our blood is very much like
> ocean water. Once biochemistry evolved to function in seawater, moving
> up to the land meant either starting all over again from scratch, or
> just carrying a bit of the ocean along with us.
>
> Maybe space colonization will be like that.
Could be.
I'm sure it's become apparent by now that I fully expect mind uploading
to happen sometime in this century -- quite possibly before we have any
large O'Neill-style space colonies.
But the future is always difficult to see, and I think it prudent to
pursue many different paths of advancement. That means, in our case,
that we should continue to pursue O'Neill style colonies on the
assumption that our biological requirements will be pretty much exactly
what they are now.
If in fact those requirements are reduced or go away, then our
engineering options will expand. But until that happens, we should
assume and plan for pure 20th-century human colonists. We certainly CAN
build colonies for such folk, and that's a very important point. Space
colonization can be done independent of any revolutionary medical or
biotech. So, when making our case, we don't need to (and should not)
bring in any more assumptions the listener may question.
Indeed, if we don't develop radical biotech, we need space colonization
all the more -- it's the only long-term way to ensure survival of humanity.
That's why I'm here, and why I support space colonization in the O'Neill
style, even though I suspect it may prove mostly moot in the long term.
Best,
- Joe
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:16 AM, William wrote:
>
> No new paradigm needed. The space between the galaxies is not empty.
> It has stars distributed throughout intergalactic space. One study
> estimates it to be 0.05% of all stars are "stellar outcasts", which
> for the Local Group of galaxies would amount to over a billion stars.
> Probably more brown dwarfs, free-floating planets, large comets, etc.
>
> These could be used as stepping stones.
(...)
galaxies collide with each other. Sometimes they fuse with, sometimes
they pass through each other. So, a cheap and convenient way for a
galactic civilization to do intergalactic travel would be just waiting
for such a collision. Sure, it requires a lot of civilizational
longevity and patience :), but I guess that a galactic civilization
would need both to exist...
(The rationale above also applies to interstellar travel. Every
million years or so a neighbor star gets so close to the Sun that many
of the difficulties of interstellar travel can be overcome in a much
easier way.)