Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier type imagery
might want to know that I've added a new picture to my Space Settlement site
at http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm. It's an image of the
interior of a Bernal Sphere.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my Space Settlement site at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm
. It's an image of the interior of a Bernal Sphere.
Regards,
Mike Combs

New Space Settlement imageMike,

I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a space station and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an artist do a picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating launching facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living space.

Regards,

Tom Tucker
From: Combs, Mike
To: 'SSI maillist' ; 'Space Settlers maillist'
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image

Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my Space Settlement site at http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm. It's an image of the interior of a Bernal Sphere.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Mike,

I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a space station and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an artist do a picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating launching facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living space.

Regards,

Tom Tucker
From:
Combs, Mike
To:
'SSI maillist'
;
'Space Settlers maillist'
Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image
Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my Space Settlement site at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm
. It's an image of the interior of a Bernal Sphere.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Not sure who you would talk to. It's important to know that I am not an
artist, and did not paint any of the images on my website.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:35 PM
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image

Mike,

I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a space station
and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an artist do a
picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating launching
facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living space.

Regards,

Tom Tucker

From: Combs, Mike
To: 'SSI maillist' ; 'Space Settlers
maillist'
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image

Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier type imagery
might want to know that I've added a new picture to my Space Settlement site
at http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm
. It's an image of the
interior of a Bernal Sphere.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Not sure who you would talk to. It's important to know that I am not an artist, and did not paint any of the images on my website.

Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]
Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:35 PM
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image
Mike,

I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a space station and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an artist do a picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating launching facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living space.

Regards,

Tom Tucker
From:
Combs, Mike
To:
'SSI maillist'
;
'Space Settlers maillist'
Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image
Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my Space Settlement site at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm
. It's an image of the interior of a Bernal Sphere.
Regards,
Mike Combs

To Tom:
You might check with Al Globus.
Al Globus [aglobus@...]
NASA Ames has been holding design contests for Space Habitats for
students and I believe some of Mike's pictures are a result of those
contests. These have been high school students from the 70's to now.
Some of them may have gone on to more work in this area.
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/contest/

To all: I am finding schools that are using the idea of space
habitats as design exercises for their students to apply their math
skills and to get them thinking about the future.
Self-Sufficient Living Spaces:
Astrospheres, Aquaspheres & Terraspheres!
A Mendocino Middle School Science/Engineering Project
http://www.mcn.org/ed/cur/cw/Habitats/Habitats.html

Developed with the assistance of his class, by
Cory M. Wisnia, A MendoWorld Science Tech Guy
cwisnia@...
Cory might be someone interested in this egroup.

Larry Kellogg

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
> New Space Settlement imageMike,
>
> I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a
space station and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an
artist do a picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating
launching facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living
space.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Tucker
> From: Combs, Mike
> To: 'SSI maillist' ; 'Space Settlers maillist'
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image
>
> Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier
type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my
Space Settlement site at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm. It's an image of the
interior of a Bernal Sphere.

Larry,

Thanks for the post. I too would like to challenge the younger generations to design space habitats. A key factor is to first come up with the specifications that take into account what we have learned about life in space, and the functionality of a space habitat or space station. As an engineer with an affinity for mechanical machines, my concepts are an extension of what has been presented in the past. Here is my working list of features:

1) Provide 1 G for occupants of living space,
2) Provide place to work as well as so live in order to provide an economy. Lets assume processing of asteroid materials from mining space ships with rare earths being sent to earth and common metals used for construction of what-ever.
3) The habitat is a focal point of commerce and hence must facilitate launching and landing of space ships between earth's orbit and Mars along with the asteroid belts. Just as an international airport attracts hotels and businesses, so to will a space station attract workers needing living space and businesses.
4) The orbital velocity and rotation of the space station can be used to assist with the launching of space ships, and can facilitate the landing or capturing of returning space ships thus minimizing the need for rocket engine thrust.

5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

6) Solar and nuclear power plants to provide propulsion power, refinement of ores, production of rocket fuel, etc. Power for tethers that boost orbital velocity by interacting with earth' magnetic field.

The above should young engineering/scientific minds plenty to work on.

cheers,

Tom Tucker
From: Larry Kellogg
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 8:33 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image

To Tom:
You might check with Al Globus.
Al Globus [aglobus@...]
NASA Ames has been holding design contests for Space Habitats for
students and I believe some of Mike's pictures are a result of those
contests. These have been high school students from the 70's to now.
Some of them may have gone on to more work in this area.
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/contest/

To all: I am finding schools that are using the idea of space
habitats as design exercises for their students to apply their math
skills and to get them thinking about the future.
----------
Self-Sufficient Living Spaces:
Astrospheres, Aquaspheres & Terraspheres!
A Mendocino Middle School Science/Engineering Project
http://www.mcn.org/ed/cur/cw/Habitats/Habitats.html

Developed with the assistance of his class, by
Cory M. Wisnia, A MendoWorld Science Tech Guy
cwisnia@...
----------
Cory might be someone interested in this egroup.

Larry Kellogg

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
> New Space Settlement imageMike,
>
> I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a
space station and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an
artist do a picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating
launching facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living
space.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Tucker
> From: Combs, Mike
> To: 'SSI maillist' ; 'Space Settlers maillist'
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image
>
> Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier
type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my
Space Settlement site at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm. It's an image of the
interior of a Bernal Sphere.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>

Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!

Thanks for the post. I too would like to challenge the younger generations to design space habitats. A key factor is to first come up with the specifications that take into account what we have learned about life in space, and the functionality of a space habitat or space station. As an engineer with an affinity for mechanical machines, my concepts are an extension of what has been presented in the past. Here is my working list of features:

1) Provide 1 G for occupants of living space,
2) Provide place to work as well as so live in order to provide an economy. Lets assume processing of asteroid materials from mining space ships with rare earths being sent to earth and common metals used for construction of what-ever.
3) The habitat is a focal point of commerce and hence must facilitate launching and landing of space ships between earth's orbit and Mars along with the asteroid belts. Just as an international airport attracts hotels and businesses, so to will a space station attract workers needing living space and businesses.
4) The orbital velocity and rotation of the space station can be used to assist with the launching of space ships, and can facilitate the landing or capturing of returning space ships thus minimizing the need for rocket engine thrust.

5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

6) Solar and nuclear power plants to provide propulsion power, refinement of ores, production of rocket fuel, etc. Power for tethers that boost orbital velocity by interacting with earth' magnetic field.

The above should young engineering/scientific minds plenty to work on.

cheers,

Tom Tucker
From:
Larry Kellogg
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 16, 2000 8:33 PM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image
To Tom:
You might check with Al Globus.
Al Globus [aglobus@...]
NASA Ames has been holding design contests for Space Habitats for
students and I believe some of Mike's pictures are a result of those
contests. These have been high school students from the 70's to now.
Some of them may have gone on to more work in this area.
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/contest/
To all: I am finding schools that are using the idea of space
habitats as design exercises for their students to apply their math
skills and to get them thinking about the future.
Self-Sufficient Living Spaces:
Astrospheres, Aquaspheres & Terraspheres!
A Mendocino Middle School Science/Engineering Project
http://www.mcn.org/ed/cur/cw/Habitats/Habitats.html
Developed with the assistance of his class, by
Cory M. Wisnia, A MendoWorld Science Tech Guy
cwisnia@...
Cory might be someone interested in this egroup.
Larry Kellogg
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> New Space Settlement imageMike,
>
> I am working on the design of what might be a new concept of a
space station and so I am wondering how much it would cost to have an
artist do a picture/image of my ideas? I am thinking of integrating
launching facilities with the habitat that would have 1 G living
space.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Tucker
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Combs, Mike
> To: 'SSI maillist' ; 'Space Settlers maillist'
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:55 AM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] New Space Settlement image
>
> Those of you on these lists with an interest in High Frontier
type imagery might want to know that I've added a new picture to my
Space Settlement site at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm.
It's an image of the
interior of a Bernal Sphere.

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Domingo, 17 de Dezembro de 2000 17:34
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image

[snikt]
5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use
of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

Not only gardens; basically, any sector of the habitat routinely
visited/occupied by humans would need shielding.

It seems that youre a proponent of Active Shielding - the use of magnetic
and electric fields to protect your habitat. What are the disadvantages that
you see with Passive Shielding - simply covering your habitat with a layer
of rock (or ice, depending on your location in the Solar System) a few
meters thick?

6) Solar and nuclear power plants to provide propulsion power, refinement of
ores, production of rocket fuel, etc. Power for tethers that boost orbital
velocity by interacting with earth' magnetic field.

If youre talking about nuclear power plants in LEO, I think that youll
have pretty serious problems with environmentalists... They got almost
hysterical simply because the Cassini probe is powered by a plutonium
battery; imagine what would be their reaction against a whole nuclear
reactor circling above their heads.

[snikt]
cheers,

cheers,

Tom Tucker
[snikt]

Lucio Coelho

From: Larry Kellogg [mailto:larrykellogg@...]

NASA Ames has been holding design contests for Space Habitats for
students and I believe some of Mike's pictures are a result of those
contests.

Most of the pictures on my site are from the NASA studies done in the '70's.
Sometimes the students in these contests photograph models or make pictures
which go on websites. You might find a few by following Al's links.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
Larry Kellogg [mailto:larrykellogg@...]
NASA Ames has been holding design contests for Space Habitats for
students and I believe some of Mike's pictures are a result of those
contests.

Most of the pictures on my site are from the NASA studies done in the '70's. Sometimes the students in these contests photograph models or make pictures which go on websites. You might find a few by following Al's links.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]

5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use
of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

As it happens, the people will actually be more sensitive to radiation than
the plants.

You might want to read T. A. Heppenheimer's "Colonies In Space". He details
how in the early days of space settlement studies they looked at a
combination of positive charge and magnetic fields for shielding, but
eventually decided that the complications were prohibitive and that passive
shielding was both simpler and better.

You mentioned asteroid mining, so there should be plenty of leftover slag
available for shielding. You also mentioned using your station for momentum
transfers. A more-massive station would then be preferable.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]
5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

As it happens, the people will actually be more sensitive to radiation than the plants.

You might want to read T. A. Heppenheimer's "Colonies In Space". He details how in the early days of space settlement studies they looked at a combination of positive charge and magnetic fields for shielding, but eventually decided that the complications were prohibitive and that passive shielding was both simpler and better.

You mentioned asteroid mining, so there should be plenty of leftover slag available for shielding. You also mentioned using your station for momentum transfers. A more-massive station would then be preferable.

Regards,
Mike Combs

MW: Any large space island worth living in is going to
have grass, trees, forest, and lakes anyway. And
that's going to mean soil and water several meters
deep. And it only takes about 5 meters of soil to
protect humans from even the most penetrating cosmic
rays. And that doesn't even include the debt of the
atmosphere inside of the space island. So for the most
part, large space islands-- which I call cosmodromes--
will be inherently safe from cosmic radiation.

Marcel F. Williams
http://www.egroups.com/group/future9/
12/18/00

From: Dr. Omni
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Domingo, 17 de Dezembro de 2000 17:34
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image

[snikt]
5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use
of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

Not only gardens; basically, any sector of the habitat routinely
visited/occupied by humans would need shielding.

It seems that youre a proponent of Active Shielding - the use of magnetic
and electric fields to protect your habitat. What are the disadvantages that
you see with Passive Shielding - simply covering your habitat with a layer
of rock (or ice, depending on your location in the Solar System) a few
meters thick?

Tom - Primarily mass, although inertia will be important. However, I believe that the lowest mass, and hence, largest volume for equal costs, can be achieved using active shielding. It would be much better to just turn-up the voltage a bit when a solar flare is due rather than hiding in a shelter IMO. Of course, if you have the mass already, then why not use it?
The structure I have in mind would be very large and metallic and so using lots of moon dust or asteroid material for shielding would make construction even more difficult. A 4 meter tube/elevator becomes a 12 meter dia tube if shielding is added...

6) Solar and nuclear power plants to provide propulsion power, refinement of
ores, production of rocket fuel, etc. Power for tethers that boost orbital
velocity by interacting with earth' magnetic field.

If youre talking about nuclear power plants in LEO, I think that youll
have pretty serious problems with environmentalists... They got almost
hysterical simply because the Cassini probe is powered by a plutonium
battery; imagine what would be their reaction against a whole nuclear
reactor circling above their heads.

Tom - Solar can also be used, but the costs will be greater and the time between space ship launches will be greater, especially for the station located at Mars.

As an engineer, frankly, I have little patience with the anti-nuclear whiners who seem to love to have a whipping boy to hate. The space station will be an international project that can be done in modules just like the ISS, and so I suspect that the French, Germans, South Africans, or Russians would be able to handle the nuclear reactor part thus leaving the myopic Americans on earth in the dust :-). Perhaps we will have to wait for those who remember Jane Fonda's anti-nuclear propaganda to die-off before we can rationally discuss the options of producing safe power from a source that does not produce green house gases?
Many anti-science Americans do not realize that the universe is nuclear powered.
I am working on a book that describes how nuclear and/or solar energy can be used to reverse global warming and I am looking forward to defending my findings before Congress. I have been testing my arguments on other lists so that I won't be surprised. I am convinced that 21st century nuclear power that incorporated tripple safety systems and combined with reprocessing of fuel rods will allow for safe operation of thousands of reactors and for the safe disposal of reduced waste.

[snikt]
cheers,

cheers,

Tom Tucker
[snikt]

Lucio Coelho

Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!

From:
Dr. Omni
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Monday, December 18, 2000 2:48 AM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image
From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)" <
tntucker@...
>
To: <
spacesettlers@egroups.com
>
Sent: Domingo, 17 de Dezembro de 2000 17:34
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image
[snikt]
5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use
of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.
Not only gardens; basically, any sector of the habitat routinely
visited/occupied by humans would need shielding.
It seems that youre a proponent of Active Shielding - the use of magnetic
and electric fields to protect your habitat. What are the disadvantages that
you see with Passive Shielding - simply covering your habitat with a layer
of rock (or ice, depending on your location in the Solar System) a few
meters thick?
Tom - Primarily mass, although inertia will be important. However, I believe that the lowest mass, and hence, largest volume for equal costs, can be achieved using active shielding. It would be much better to just turn-up the voltage a bit when a solar flare is due rather than hiding in a shelter IMO. Of course, if you have the mass already, then why not use it?
The structure I have in mind would be very large and metallic and so using lots of moon dust or asteroid material for shielding would make construction even more difficult. A 4 meter tube/elevator becomes a 12 meter dia tube if shielding is added...

6) Solar and nuclear power plants to provide propulsion power, refinement of
ores, production of rocket fuel, etc. Power for tethers that boost orbital
velocity by interacting with earth' magnetic field.
If youre talking about nuclear power plants in LEO, I think that youll
have pretty serious problems with environmentalists... They got almost
hysterical simply because the Cassini probe is powered by a plutonium
battery; imagine what would be their reaction against a whole nuclear
reactor circling above their heads.
Tom - Solar can also be used, but the costs will be greater and the time between space ship launches will be greater, especially for the station located at Mars.

As an engineer, frankly, I have little patience with the anti-nuclear whiners who seem to love to have a whipping boy to hate. The space station will be an international project that can be done in modules just like the ISS, and so I suspect that the French, Germans, South Africans, or Russians would be able to handle the nuclear reactor part thus leaving the myopic Americans on earth in the dust :-). Perhaps we will have to wait for those who remember Jane Fonda's anti-nuclear propaganda to die-off before we can rationally discuss the options of producing safe power from a source that does not produce green house gases?
Many anti-science Americans do not realize that the universe is nuclear powered.
I am working on a book that describes how nuclear and/or solar energy can be used to reverse global warming and I am looking forward to defending my findings before Congress. I have been testing my arguments on other lists so that I won't be surprised. I am convinced that 21st century nuclear power that incorporated tripple safety systems and combined with reprocessing of fuel rods will allow for safe operation of thousands of reactors and for the safe disposal of reduced waste.
[snikt]
cheers,
cheers,
Tom Tucker
[snikt]
Lucio Coelho

From: Combs, Mike
To: 'spacesettlers@egroups.com'
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:52 AM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]

5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

As it happens, the people will actually be more sensitive to radiation than the plants.

You might want to read T. A. Heppenheimer's "Colonies In Space". He details how in the early days of space settlement studies they looked at a combination of positive charge and magnetic fields for shielding, but eventually decided that the complications were prohibitive and that passive shielding was both simpler and better.

Tom - Yes, I have the book and believe that the design deserves to be left on the table. It is true if you have millions of tons of "dross" as he says on page 162, that shielding makes sense, however, what do you use in the meantime? Also, if your space colony/station is a space machine for launching space ships, shielding may be more difficult than shielding a donut shape. The use of a high voltage for shielding from cosmic rays and solar wind is very appealing to me. It even makes sense to consider it for space ships, especially if the space ships are plasma driven since they would already have the ability to generate very large voltages, especially if it was nuclear powered.
I have yet to see an economic analysis that would justify taking the active shielding option off of the table.

You mentioned asteroid mining, so there should be plenty of leftover slag available for shielding. You also mentioned using your station for momentum transfers. A more-massive station would then be preferable.

Tom - Yes, but we must also be able to move the structural components and this may make very massive components more difficult to manuver. Alloy steel from asteroids is the preferred material along with aluminum and titanium when we can get it.

Regards,
Mike Combs

Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!

From:
Combs, Mike
To:
'spacesettlers@egroups.com'
Sent:
Monday, December 18, 2000 5:52 AM
Subject:
RE: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image
From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]
5) Gardens must be shielded from cosmic rays and solar wind/flares. The use of high voltages to repel charged particles is recommended.

As it happens, the people will actually be more sensitive to radiation than the plants.

You might want to read T. A. Heppenheimer's "Colonies In Space". He details how in the early days of space settlement studies they looked at a combination of positive charge and magnetic fields for shielding, but eventually decided that the complications were prohibitive and that passive shielding was both simpler and better.

Tom - Yes, I have the book and believe that the design deserves to be left on the table. It is true if you have millions of tons of "dross" as he says on page 162, that shielding makes sense, however, what do you use in the meantime? Also, if your space colony/station is a space machine for launching space ships, shielding may be more difficult than shielding a donut shape. The use of a high voltage for shielding from cosmic rays and solar wind is very appealing to me. It even makes sense to consider it for space ships, especially if the space ships are plasma driven since they would already have the ability to generate very large voltages, especially if it was nuclear powered.
I have yet to see an economic analysis that would justify taking the active shielding option off of the table.

You mentioned asteroid mining, so there should be plenty of leftover slag available for shielding. You also mentioned using your station for momentum transfers. A more-massive station would then be preferable.

Tom - Yes, but we must also be able to move the structural components and this may make very massive components more difficult to manuver. Alloy steel from asteroids is the preferred material along with aluminum and titanium when we can get it.

Regards,
Mike Combs

Marcel,

Soil is great for our feet, but how much atmosphere do you figure would be
needed for shielding?

I envision a space colony more like a luxury liner than a farm, with natural
sun light piped into rooms throughout the structure where green houses
co-mingle with homes and offices.

Regards,

Tom

From: "Marcel Williams"
To:
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Space Settlement image

MW: If your talkin' luxury liner then your talkin'
about a big space station. But if your talking about
O'neill type space colonies then at mininimum these
would have to be at least 2 kilometers in diameter
just to make sure that 99.9% of the people who inhabit
themwon't feel nausea. Medical research back in the
1970s showed that rotation rates higher than 1rpm for
a 1G simulated gravity were not healthy-- so you have
to have a structure with a diameter of at least 2
kilometers. I cover the entire surface of a
cylindrical cosmodrome with shielding (soil and
water)-- even the window area (water about 5 meters
deep). Of course, I prefer a cosmodrome about 30
kilometers in diameter and about 100 kilometers long.
Only the mass production of structures that size will
ever attract people from Earth to live their forever,
IMO. And, of course, the center of the cosmodrome will
be pressurized with air almost 2 kilometers to, of
course, 30 kilometers deep which will add even more
cosmic radiation protection.

But even a rotating a space station will still have to
be at least 2 kilometers in diameter if you want to
produce 1G gravity. But this can easily be done with
two modules attached from opposite sides by one
kilometer cables from the rotating axis of a central
structure.

Marcel F. Williams
12/18/00

--- "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@connectcorp.net]

From: Dr. Omni

It seems that youre a proponent of Active Shielding - the use of magnetic
and electric fields to protect your habitat. What are the disadvantages that
you see with Passive Shielding - simply covering your habitat with a layer
of rock (or ice, depending on your location in the Solar System) a few
meters thick?

Tom - Primarily mass, although inertia will be important.

To me, this would be more of an issue for a travelling structure than a
stationary one.

However, I believe that the lowest mass, and hence, largest volume for
equal costs, can be achieved using active shielding.

If the shielding is made up of slag left over from your ore refining
operation, I don't see it adding a lot to the costs, at least not from a
material standpoint. I don't think the construction costs would be as high
as for the pressure shell, as I think the construction requirements would
not be quite as precise as what's needed for a pressure shell.

It would be much better to just turn-up the voltage a bit when a solar
flare is due rather than hiding in a shelter IMO.

I think the advantage of the 6' thick shield is that you can just go about
your buisiness normally during flares.

A 4 meter tube/elevator becomes a 12 meter dia tube if shielding is added...

I'd question if shielding was even needed for an elevator tube. The 4-6'
shielding requirement is for what's safe to live in for the rest of your
life. Since one would only spend a short amount of time in the elevator
tube, shielding requirements there would probably be somewhat relaxed.
Given the nature of primaries/secondaries, no shielding at all may be best.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@connectcorp.net]
From:
Dr. Omni
It seems that youre a proponent of Active Shielding - the use of magnetic
and electric fields to protect your habitat. What are the disadvantages that
you see with Passive Shielding - simply covering your habitat with a layer
of rock (or ice, depending on your location in the Solar System) a few
meters thick?
Tom - Primarily mass, although inertia will be important.

To me, this would be more of an issue for a travelling structure than a stationary one.

However, I believe that the lowest mass, and hence, largest volume for equal costs, can be achieved using active shielding.

If the shielding is made up of slag left over from your ore refining operation, I don't see it adding a lot to the costs, at least not from a material standpoint. I don't think the construction costs would be as high as for the pressure shell, as I think the construction requirements would not be quite as precise as what's needed for a pressure shell.

It would be much better to just turn-up the voltage a bit when a solar flare is due rather than hiding in a shelter IMO.

I think the advantage of the 6' thick shield is that you can just go about your buisiness normally during flares.

A 4 meter tube/elevator becomes a 12 meter dia tube if shielding is added...

I
'd question if shielding was even needed for an elevator tube. The 4-6' shielding requirement is for

what's safe to live in for the rest of your life. Since one would only spend a short amount of time in the elevator tube, shielding requirements there would probably be somewhat relaxed.

Given the nature of primaries/secondaries, no shielding at all may be best.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]

Tom - Yes, I have the book and believe that the design deserves to be left
on the table. It is true if you have millions of tons of "dross" as he says
on page 162, that shielding makes sense, however, what do you use in the
meantime?

I have heard a proposal that the initial "construction shack" be built with
a double wall. When the raw lunar soil starts coming up, it's shoveled into
the gap, forming the first radiation shield. As the ore refining operation
ramps up, soil is pulled from this space and then replaced with slag.

The use of a high voltage for shielding from cosmic rays and solar wind is
very appealing to me. It even makes sense to consider it for space ships,
especially if the space ships are plasma driven since they would already
have the ability to generate very large voltages, especially if it was
nuclear powered.

I can see a much better case for it for space craft than for stationary
structures, since passive shielding adds so much mass, and hence inertia.

I have yet to see an economic analysis that would justify taking the active
shielding option off of the table.

I suppose it would be a mistake to rule anything out. But another advantage
of passive shielding is that you can't have a systems failure or a power
interruption in a wall.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]
Tom - Yes, I have the book and believe that the design deserves to be left on the table. It is true if you have millions of tons of "dross" as he says on page 162, that shielding makes sense, however, what do you use in the meantime?

I have heard a proposal that the initial "construction shack" be built with a double wall. When the raw lunar soil starts coming up, it's shoveled into the gap, forming the first radiation shield. As the ore refining operation ramps up, soil is pulled from this space and then replaced with slag.

The use of a high voltage for shielding from cosmic rays and solar wind is very appealing to me. It even makes sense to consider it for space ships, especially if the space ships are plasma driven since they would already have the ability to generate very large voltages, especially if it was nuclear powered.

I can see a much better case for it for space craft than for stationary structures, since passive shielding adds so much mass, and hence inertia.

I have yet to see an economic analysis that would justify taking the active shielding option off of the table.

I suppose it would be a mistake to rule anything out. But another advantage of passive shielding is that you can't have a systems failure or a power interruption in a wall.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]

Soil is great for our feet, but how much atmosphere do you figure would be
needed for shielding?

Not sure of the exact answer to this question, but I know that when O'Neill
got to the Island 3 stage (with 4 miles of atmosphere overhead), we were to
a point where a separate radiation shield was no longer necessary. It's one
of the reasons why Island 3 wouldn't necessarily cost 1,000 times more to
build than an Island 1.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]
Soil is great for our feet, but how much atmosphere do you figure would be
needed for shielding?

Not sure of the exact answer to this question, but I know that when O'Neill got to the Island 3 stage (with 4 miles of atmosphere overhead), we were to a point where a separate radiation shield was no longer necessary. It's one of the reasons why Island 3 wouldn't necessarily cost 1,000 times more to build than an Island 1.

Regards,
Mike Combs

> From: Marcel Williams [mailto:newpapyrus@...]
>
> MW: If your talkin' luxury liner then your talkin'
> about a big space station. But if your talking about
> O'neill type space colonies then at mininimum these
> would have to be at least 2 kilometers in diameter
> just to make sure that 99.9% of the people who inhabit
> themwon't feel nausea. Medical research back in the
> 1970s showed that rotation rates higher than 1rpm for
> a 1G simulated gravity were not healthy-- so you have
> to have a structure with a diameter of at least 2
> kilometers.

While agreeing with you on the distinction between a station (even a
luxurious one) and a habitat, I must comment that there is some disagreement
on this issue of spin rate. There are other studies which suggest that 2-3
RPMs might be acceptable to the biggest majority of people. O'Neill felt
that his Bernal Sphere, at 2 RPMs, was a reasonable compromise. The 1 RPM
upper limit was adhered to in the NASA-Ames study, though. There, a
diameter of 1.1 mile was assumed.

Another variable in this is if it should turn out that some gravity lower
than 1 G is acceptable. This might result in smaller structures for a given
spin rate, or lower spin rates for a given structure. In other words, we
might see something as small as a Bernal Sphere, but it may only rotate at 1
RPM to give 1/2 of a G at the equator.

> I cover the entire surface of a
> cylindrical cosmodrome with shielding (soil and
> water)-- even the window area (water about 5 meters
> deep).

2 meters would probably be sufficient. I think that's what Marshal Savage
assumes for his water shield.

> Of course, I prefer a cosmodrome about 30
> kilometers in diameter and about 100 kilometers long.

I think you would be beyond current material strengths there. O'Neill
calculated the maximum size possible as 19 km diameter for a titanium
sphere. But that would be no slouch; providing around two hundred square
kilometers of land.

> Only the mass production of structures that size will
> ever attract people from Earth to live their forever,
> IMO.

I agree with your thinking. Many Europeans might be comfortable in a Bernal
Sphere, but most Americans and others used to a little bit more distance
between neighbors probably wouldn't settle for anything less than an O'Neill
Cylinder.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> From: Marcel Williams [
mailto:newpapyrus@...
]
>
> MW: If your talkin' luxury liner then your talkin'
> about a big space station. But if your talking about
> O'neill type space colonies then at mininimum these
> would have to be at least 2 kilometers in diameter
> just to make sure that 99.9% of the people who inhabit
> themwon't feel nausea. Medical research back in the
> 1970s showed that rotation rates higher than 1rpm for
a 1G simulated gravity were not healthy-- so you have
> to have a structure with a diameter of at least 2
> kilometers.
While agreeing with you on the distinction between a station (even a luxurious one) and a habitat, I must comment that there is some disagreement on this issue of spin rate. There are other studies which suggest that 2-3 RPMs might be acceptable to the biggest majority of people. O'Neill felt that his Bernal Sphere, at 2 RPMs, was a reasonable compromise. The 1 RPM upper limit was adhered to in the NASA-Ames study, though. There, a diameter of 1.1 mile was assumed.
Another variable in this is if it should turn out that some gravity lower than 1 G is acceptable. This might result in smaller structures for a given spin rate, or lower spin rates for a given structure. In other words, we might see something as small as a Bernal Sphere, but it may only rotate at 1 RPM to give 1/2 of a G at the equator.
> I cover the entire surface of a
> cylindrical cosmodrome with shielding (soil and
> water)-- even the window area (water about 5 meters
> deep).
2 meters would probably be sufficient. I think that's what Marshal Savage assumes for his water shield.
> Of course, I prefer a cosmodrome about 30
> kilometers in diameter and about 100 kilometers long.
I think you would be beyond current material strengths there. O'Neill calculated the maximum size possible as 19 km diameter for a titanium sphere. But that would be no slouch; providing around two hundred square kilometers of land.
> Only the mass production of structures that size will
> ever attract people from Earth to live their forever,
> IMO.
I agree with your thinking. Many Europeans might be comfortable in a Bernal Sphere, but most Americans and others used to a little bit more distance between neighbors probably wouldn't settle for anything less than an O'Neill Cylinder.
Regards,
Mike Combs

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> > From: Marcel Williams
> [mailto:newpapyrus@...]
> >
> > MW: If your talkin' luxury liner then your talkin'
> > about a big space station. But if your talking
> about
> > O'neill type space colonies then at mininimum
> these
> > would have to be at least 2 kilometers in diameter
> > just to make sure that 99.9% of the people who
> inhabit
> > themwon't feel nausea. Medical research back in
> the
> > 1970s showed that rotation rates higher than 1rpm
> for
> > a 1G simulated gravity were not healthy-- so you
> have
> > to have a structure with a diameter of at least 2
> > kilometers.
>
> Mike : While agreeing with you on the distinction
between a
> station (even a
> luxurious one) and a habitat, I must comment that
> there is some disagreement
> on this issue of spin rate. There are other studies
> which suggest that 2-3
> RPMs might be acceptable to the biggest majority of
> people. O'Neill felt
> that his Bernal Sphere, at 2 RPMs, was a reasonable
> compromise. The 1 RPM
> upper limit was adhered to in the NASA-Ames study,
> though. There, a
> diameter of 1.1 mile was assumed.
>
> Another variable in this is if it should turn out
> that some gravity lower
> than 1 G is acceptable. This might result in
> smaller structures for a given
> spin rate, or lower spin rates for a given
> structure. In other words, we
> might see something as small as a Bernal Sphere, but
> it may only rotate at 1
> RPM to give 1/2 of a G at the equator.

MW: Such a scenario could be the beginning of creating
a particular G oriented race. And that's all we need
is another-- segregated race of people, IMO. But I
think most entrepreneurs will want to maximize profits
by building space islands that can accomodate--
everyone.
>
> >MW: I cover the entire surface of a
> > cylindrical cosmodrome with shielding (soil and
> > water)-- even the window area (water about 5
> meters
> > deep).
>
> Mike: 2 meters would probably be sufficient. I
think
> that's what Marshal Savage
> assumes for his water shield.
>
> > Of course, I prefer a cosmodrome about 30
> > kilometers in diameter and about 100 kilometers
> long.
>
> Mike: I think you would be beyond current material
> strengths there. O'Neill
> calculated the maximum size possible as 19 km
> diameter for a titanium
> sphere. But that would be no slouch; providing
> around two hundred square
> kilometers of land.
>

MW: Since I assume that the first structures 30 km by
100 km will be built in space around 2050. I also
assume that they will be using space manufacture
materials. And microgravity manufactured metalic
whiskers would have tensile strengths 100 times
stronger than terrestrially manufactured wires and
cables.

>
Marcel F. Williams
12/19/00

The bottom 10 km of the atmosphere make up 80% or so of it. I would
say that is a good guess. It probably isn't that much, and a couple of
meters of water over the windows will remove most of the radiation
befor it gets into the structure.

I'd hate to be the guy who has to clean the algea growing on them
though.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@c...]
>
> Soil is great for our feet, but how much atmosphere do you figure
would be
> needed for shielding?
>
> Not sure of the exact answer to this question, but I know that when
O'Neill
> got to the Island 3 stage (with 4 miles of atmosphere overhead), we
were to
> a point where a separate radiation shield was no longer necessary.
It's one
> of the reasons why Island 3 wouldn't necessarily cost 1,000 times
more to

MW: Brine is used for the windowed sections to keep
the birds away. And the water is recycled and
irradiated by ultraviolet radiation to prevent algae
from growing.

Marcel F. Williams
12/19/00

--- bill t wrote:

I think your method has real flaws, How fast do you expect to pump the
water through the irradiation system. How big is the irradition
system? We are talking about organisms with a doubling time of a
couple of hours. To be effective, you would have to pump all that
water through the irradiation system faster than the doubling time.

The math:
Volume of water = 20000 m x 3000m x2m = 1.2x10^8 m^3. per window.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Marcel Williams

MW: You may have a point Bill. But I can easily solve
this by allowing reflected UV radiation from my
reflective aluminum cone to penetrate the window area;
and protect the colonist from dangerous UV rays by
placing a thin protective transparent sheet of UV
protective plastic just above the the water.

Marcel F. Williams
12/20/00
--- bill t wrote:

You can add about a meter of water more and get rid of the film
altogether.
A cute side effect is that you will get higher humidity. But you can
adjust the temperature by increasing or decreasing the light intensity
at the mirrors.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Marcel Williams

bill t wrote:

> You can add about a meter of water more and get rid of the film
> altogether.
> A cute side effect is that you will get higher humidity.

I've a feeling that keeping the humidity low is better
by and large. It reduces the growth of molds and fungus
for one thing. (Think: Mir.)

Perhaps it is simpler just to ditch the water and use this
special technique called 'washing the windows'? Keeping the
UV out is trivial with plastic covering.

Incidentally how *do* you replace a window in a habitat?

Ian Woollard wrote:

> bill t wrote:
>
> > You can add about a meter of water more and get rid of the film
> > altogether.
> > A cute side effect is that you will get higher humidity.
>
> I've a feeling that keeping the humidity low is better
> by and large. It reduces the growth of molds and fungus
> for one thing. (Think: Mir.)
>

Hello Ian,

Having high or low humidity is really only of interest from a comfort
standpoint and you will not have the same type of problems encountered
in Mir, at lest not near a habitat window. Mir has a micro-G
environment and as such allowed droplets to float in air currents to
hard to reach places. In a habitat, away from the axis you will have no
more trouble than you would in a normal environment, providing you have
no abnormal conditions, which is always possible.

>
> Perhaps it is simpler just to ditch the water and use this
> special technique called 'washing the windows'? Keeping the
> UV out is trivial with plastic covering.
>
> Incidentally how *do* you replace a window in a habitat?
>

You don't you just patch as needed or place the new one outside of the
old and when you have a seal you remove the old from inside or place a
temporary patch outside and replace, then remove the patch.

Darren Brown