From: Monart Pon [mailto:monart@...]

Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ
< http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm
>

I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
bias against nuclear development in space which
was not explained.

To me, it's as simple as this. If the environmentalists shriek and come
perilously close to blocking the launch of a Saturn probe over a small,
thermionic generator, what are they going to do when you proposed launching
a full-blown nuclear power plant on a rocket? The imagery of Challenger is
still very vivid in everyone's mind. I hear it argued that the nuclear fuel
rods would not be hot prior to first power-up, but could we convince
environmentalists of that?

If nuclear material were mined from ET resources, and the nuclear engines
built in space, I can't see a legitimate cause for objection. But by the
time we could do that, we'd already be well into a High Frontier era. I'm
more interested in figuring out how we can get there from here.

I saw discussion concerning
the benefits of solar power out to a great distance
from the sun but much of the construction materials
for large space based habitats past Mars and the
asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
from the inner solar system.

Not at all. There are many asteroids which orbit well outside of the belt.
There are Jupiter's Trojans and Apollos. There are Kuiper objects.

Given the desiccation of bodies in the inner solar system, and our
dependence on hydrogen and other volatiles, there may sooner be a market for
importing materials from the outer solar system to the inner than
vice-versa.

The vast majority of
mass in low gravity wells is in the form of cometary
material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.

I don't see much point in struggling with the problem of how to build
habitats beyond Pluto before we've even built our first one in HEO.

The problems concerning populations doubling
every forty years are acknowledged to only be delayed
by moving into the nearby solar system. In reality
it does not directly benefit Earth population pressures
at all [the indirect benefits may be large however].

Agreed.

There has never been any serious talk of large masses
of people moving to space in order to relieve the Earth
of population pressures. The numbers of people you
would need to move are simply staggering.

If by "serious talk" you mean informed scientific speculation, you're
certainly correct. But many laymen continue to talk in those kind of terms.
(There's a guy on one of the space newsgroups who wants to depopulate Earth
and turn it into a big park.)

Talk about reducing Earth's population via space settlement may have been
more prevalent in the 1970s than today. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse.
But since people still ask questions about this topic, it seemed appropriate
to include it in a FAQ.

Moon, Mars, and/or asteroid infrastructure will
need to be erected before large space based
habitats can be erected from materials originating
from space.

Certainly either lunar development or asteroid development (and possibly
even both), would precede large space habitats. But I could see space
habitats coming about prior to any serious kind of economic development of
Mars.

Although the Moon and Mars have low
gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
platform, at a greatly reduced cost.

Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built
10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Monart Pon [mailto:monart@...]

Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ
<
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm
>
I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
bias against nuclear development in space which
was not explained.

To me, it's as simple as this. If the environmentalists shriek and come perilously close to blocking the launch of a Saturn probe over a small, thermionic generator, what are they going to do when you proposed launching a full-blown nuclear power plant on a rocket? The imagery of Challenger is still very vivid in everyone's mind. I hear it argued that the nuclear fuel rods would not be hot prior to first power-up, but could we convince environmentalists of that?

If nuclear material were mined from ET resources, and the nuclear engines built in space, I can't see a legitimate cause for objection. But by the time we could do that, we'd already be well into a High Frontier era. I'm more interested in figuring out how we can get there from here.

I saw discussion concerning
the benefits of solar power out to a great distance
from the sun but much of the construction materials
for large space based habitats past Mars and the
asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
from the inner solar system.

Not at all. There are many asteroids which orbit well outside of the belt. There are Jupiter's Trojans and Apollos. There are Kuiper objects.

Given the desiccation of bodies in the inner solar system, and our dependence on hydrogen and other volatiles, there may sooner be a market for importing materials from the outer solar system to the inner than vice-versa.

The vast majority of
mass in low gravity wells is in the form of cometary
material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.

I don't see much point in struggling with the problem of how to build habitats beyond Pluto before we've even built our first one in HEO.

The problems concerning populations doubling
every forty years are acknowledged to only be delayed
by moving into the nearby solar system. In reality
it does not directly benefit Earth population pressures
at all [the indirect benefits may be large however].

Agreed.

There has never been any serious talk of large masses
of people moving to space in order to relieve the Earth
of population pressures. The numbers of people you
would need to move are simply staggering.

If by "serious talk" you mean informed scientific speculation, you're certainly correct. But many laymen continue to talk in those kind of terms. (There's a guy on one of the space newsgroups who wants to depopulate Earth and turn it into a big park.)

Talk about reducing Earth's population via space settlement may have been more prevalent in the 1970s than today. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse. But since people still ask questions about this topic, it seemed appropriate to include it in a FAQ.
Moon, Mars, and/or asteroid infrastructure will
need to be erected before large space based
habitats can be erected from materials originating
from space.

Certainly either lunar development or asteroid development (and possibly even both), would precede large space habitats. But I could see space habitats coming about prior to any serious kind of economic development of Mars.

Although the Moon and Mars have low
gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
platform, at a greatly reduced cost.

Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built 10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: Ryan Healey [mailto:bestonnet_00@...]

Bootstraping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying
to
build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too much
(it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources though
but
no one is going to pay for it).

To my mind, the only scenario that really make sense is that we build the
infrastructure needed to mine the moon and/or asteroids, and do major
manufacturing in space because we want to build enough SPS to meet global
needs for new energy. Then, having created all this infrastructure, we find
that building orbital habitats is relatively easy and economical.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Ryan Healey [mailto:bestonnet_00@...]
Bootstraping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying to
build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too much
(it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources though but
no one is going to pay for it).

To my mind, the only scenario that really make sense is that we build the infrastructure needed to mine the moon and/or asteroids, and do major manufacturing in space because we want to build enough SPS to meet global needs for new energy. Then, having created all this infrastructure, we find that building orbital habitats is relatively easy and economical.
Regards,
Mike Combs

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

You may ultimately be right, Mike, but I sure don't find your comments
very comforting. If we must rely on getting a grand slam --- huge
initial investment to commit to "go all the way" to create a minimum of 20
SPSs --- then we may find ourselves waiting forever for that grand slam.
Is there any political support for the public investment needed for that
grand slam, were it a government program? Is there any indication that
power companies would be willing to put that much money at risk?

What I would encourage everyone in this group to do is to think of
alternatives to the grand slam. What kinds of singles and doubles might
we be able to hit, instead of pinning all our hopes on the grand slam? It
may be for this reason that Ryan Healey made his comment about
bootstrapping.

There is one other scenario I can envision, and it has been receiving
increasing attention of late. Space tourism proves to be a financially
viable industry. Starting with weekends and later entire weeks in small
orbiters, we gradually move to orbital motels. As the space end of the
operation grows in size and complexity, raw materials obtained from space
come to be used for more and more purposes. The hotels evolve, in slow
incremental improvements, into the kind of large orbital habitats envisioned
by O'Neill.

The Space Future website at http://www.spacefuture.com/
seems to assign equal weight to space tourism
and space power. That's probably a pretty good approach.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
You may ultimately be right, Mike, but I sure don't find your comments
very comforting. If we must rely on getting a grand slam --- huge
initial investment to commit to "go all the way" to create a minimum of 20
SPSs --- then we may find ourselves waiting forever for that grand slam.
Is there any political support for the public investment needed for that
grand slam, were it a government program? Is there any indication that
power companies would be willing to put that much money at risk?
What I would encourage everyone in this group to do is to think of
alternatives to the grand slam. What kinds of singles and doubles might
we be able to hit, instead of pinning all our hopes on the grand slam? It
may be for this reason that Ryan Healey made his comment about
bootstrapping.

There is one other scenario I can envision, and it has been receiving increasing attention of late. Space tourism proves to be a financially viable industry. Starting with weekends and later entire weeks in small orbiters, we gradually move to orbital motels. As the space end of the operation grows in size and complexity, raw materials obtained from space come to be used for more and more purposes. The hotels evolve, in slow incremental improvements, into the kind of large orbital habitats envisioned by O'Neill.

The Space Future website at
http://www.spacefuture.com/
seems to assign equal weight to space tourism and space power. That's probably a pretty good approach.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: Ryan Healey [mailto:bestonnet_00@...]

If we have the infrastruture in orbit then building space colonies will be
np.

Of course the infrastruture would be expenisve. That's why building it up
to
support small scale operations then bringing it up to a larger scale is the
best way. Once there is activity like what would be needed for space
tourism
the infrastruture would then be expanded as it would be the way to make
money.

The only problem here is that, in truth, use of space resources only really
makes sense above a certain scale of operation. Many kinds of operations
will simply be too small for the savings in lift costs to pay for the
investment in mining equipment, orbital ore refineries, and orbital
manufacturing centers.

The only kind of terraced approach to this I can visualize might go
something like this. Initial retrieval of lunar or asteroidal soil is done
simply for the purpose of making it available for radiation shielding for
manned platforms above the magnetosphere. This would involve no materials
processing whatsoever. We'd just launch modules up from Earth with a
double-walled construction, with about 6 feet of clearance between the
walls. Once in orbit, we'd simply shovel the soil in for our radiation
shield.

Another use of space resources which wouldn't require any processing would
be as reaction mass in mass-driver reaction engine tugs. We could certainly
get the enterprise started this way, although we wouldn't want to use raw
soil as reaction mass for too long into the project. Liquid oxygen would be
safer, but that will have to wait on future material processing capabilities
(in essence, the ability to smelt ores).

The easiest element to extract from space ores would probably be water.
It's useful in its primary form, and can be separated into H2 and O2 for
propellant. This would change the logistics and economics of travel in
cislunar space to a remarkable extent.

Then later, simple oxygen extraction from space ores might occur. O2 is
around 86% the weight of both water and rocket fuel. The "slag" would be
retained against future enhancements to space materials processing
capabilities for obtaining pure silicon and metals.

I think that's about as terraced as it can get. Even at the onset, space
operations will have to be several orders of magnitude bigger than anything
happening at present to justify use of space resources.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Ryan Healey [mailto:bestonnet_00@...]
If we have the infrastruture in orbit then building space colonies will be np.
Of course the infrastruture would be expenisve. That's why building it up to
support small scale operations then bringing it up to a larger scale is the
best way. Once there is activity like what would be needed for space tourism
the infrastruture would then be expanded as it would be the way to make money.

The only problem here is that, in truth, use of space resources only really makes sense above a certain scale of operation. Many kinds of operations will simply be too small for the savings in lift costs to pay for the investment in mining equipment, orbital ore refineries, and orbital manufacturing centers.

The only kind of terraced approach to this I can visualize might go something like this. Initial retrieval of lunar or asteroidal soil is done simply for the purpose of making it available for radiation shielding for manned platforms above the magnetosphere. This would involve no materials processing whatsoever. We'd just launch modules up from Earth with a double-walled construction, with about 6 feet of clearance between the walls. Once in orbit, we'd simply shovel the soil in for our radiation shield.

Another use of space resources which wouldn't require any processing would be as reaction mass in mass-driver reaction engine tugs. We could certainly get the enterprise started this way, although we wouldn't want to use raw soil as reaction mass for too long into the project. Liquid oxygen would be safer, but that will have to wait on future material processing capabilities (in essence, the ability to smelt ores).

The easiest element to extract from space ores would probably be water. It's useful in its primary form, and can be separated into H2 and O2 for propellant. This would change the logistics and economics of travel in cislunar space to a remarkable extent.

Then later, simple oxygen extraction from space ores might occur. O2 is around 86% the weight of both water and rocket fuel. The "slag" would be retained against future enhancements to space materials processing capabilities for obtaining pure silicon and metals.

I think that's about as terraced as it can get. Even at the onset, space operations will have to be several orders of magnitude bigger than anything happening at present to justify use of space resources.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Hi everyone,

I am currently attending a Space System Design Contest with my
friends but I don't know where to start with. What should I do?
Should I use a Functional Flow Block Diagram or what?

Also any tips in designing a space settlement system?

Thanks a lot!

Nicole

Hello, my name is Tom Bielecki, and i am a 17 year old studnet from
Calgary, Canada.

I am participating in a NASA space settlement project (
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Contest/ )
that gives a very general guidelines for the competition, "Students
develop space settlement designs and related materials."

I have had long talks with my biology teacher, my physics teacher, and
my chemistry teacher, and I AM LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT, ON HOW YOU
THINK LIFE WILL BE LIKE, IN SPACE, IN THE NEXT 200-400 YEARS

My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius of 2 or 3 KM, and
a minor radius of 1.5 KM. Do you think that this spinning colony
should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere? if it does, then it
blocks all UV light, needed by living organisms (which can be created
artificially with lights), if it doesn't have a ceiling, then
particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have natural UV, and,
hey, it would look cool. What do you think?

I am planning on the settlement being a technological cocoon for the
settlers (starting: 500,000 ?). This would allow the citizens to live
IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve centers on the body
will be able to create more senses in the body... possibly even a
telecommunications link between individuals, to "hear what they hear"
"know what they know" "feel what they feel." I am looking at creating
somewhat Post-human citizens, who are in a symbiosis with the
technology around them. Only basic education will be needed. When a
person does not understand, or know something, they can interact with
the colony's data center, which can feed information at the required
time, to the required individual. It will be like a wikipedia,
accessed by all, at any time. This will truly be a utopian society. No
government. No disease. No money. No businesses. No services. People
FOR the people. It will be fundamentally basic, on the social level,
yet highly advanced, and observed, at the technological level. Only
the best of the best will be chosen to live here, in the Lagrange
orbit, L5. A quantum computer, and server hive will reside in the
center of the colony, provided (near) instant answers to all of life's
questions, if needed.

Please reply with your responses. No matter how small.
Also, try to keep yourselves from commenting on each others' posts,
and rely on a response of your own. It is more efficient.

This competition ends march 31... and I have to mail it as well... so
there are only a few days left. Be quick. Thank you for your help.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "tom.bielecki"
wrote:
>
> Hello, my name is Tom Bielecki, and i am a 17 year old studnet from
> Calgary, Canada.
>
> I am participating in a NASA space settlement project (
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Contest/ )
> that gives a very general guidelines for the competition, "Students
> develop space settlement designs and related materials."
>
> I have had long talks with my biology teacher, my physics teacher, and
> my chemistry teacher, and I AM LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT, ON HOW YOU
> THINK LIFE WILL BE LIKE, IN SPACE, IN THE NEXT 200-400 YEARS
>
> My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius of 2 or 3 KM, and
> a minor radius of 1.5 KM. Do you think that this spinning colony
> should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere? if it does, then it
> blocks all UV light, needed by living organisms (which can be created
> artificially with lights), if it doesn't have a ceiling, then
> particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have natural UV, and,
> hey, it would look cool. What do you think?
>
> I am planning on the settlement being a technological cocoon for the
> settlers (starting: 500,000 ?). This would allow the citizens to live
> IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve centers on the body
> will be able to create more senses in the body... possibly even a
> telecommunications link between individuals, to "hear what they hear"
> "know what they know" "feel what they feel." I am looking at creating
> somewhat Post-human citizens, who are in a symbiosis with the
> technology around them. Only basic education will be needed. When a
> person does not understand, or know something, they can interact with
> the colony's data center, which can feed information at the required
> time, to the required individual. It will be like a wikipedia,
> accessed by all, at any time. This will truly be a utopian society.

Dear Tom,

I lean towards a completely shielded torus design for the simple
reason that radiation shielding for an L5 stationing of the settlement
is more critical than the direct use of sunlight inside the facility.
Sunlight can be used to generate energy and that energy can then be
used for lighting and other necessary (electrical) services. The space
inside the torus will be so large that having a "skylight" ceiling
overhead will be of little interest or inspiration to the occupants.

I would caution you against imagining a "truly utopian society".
History has shown us time and time again that one man's (or one
group's) utopia is another man's prison. Modern democratic societies
are messy and imperfect but they are nevertheless a vast improvement
over historical attempts to create a utopia single-handedly.

Having people connected "wikipedia fashion" is a good idea in
moderation. I'm sure you wouldn't want everyone to be able to access
all of your thoughts and communications whenever they felt like it.
Also, having information readily available is not a substitute for
learning how to use that information. Learning how to successfully and
ethically use information goes beyond what most people would consider
a "basic" education. This is one reason why parents like to see their
children go past the eighth grade in school.

Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "nicolewlleung"
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am currently attending a Space System Design Contest with my
> friends but I don't know where to start with. What should I do?
> Should I use a Functional Flow Block Diagram or what?
>
> Also any tips in designing a space settlement system?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Nicole
>

Dear Nicole,

People have written entire books on the design of space colonies. An
in depth design proposal might encompass many hundreds of pages of
technical data relating energy requirements, mass balance equations
for consumables such as oxygen, water, carbon, etc.

For your purpose I suggest you start with the fundamental requirements
needed to support a community in space. These would be radiation
shielding, energy generation (probably solar generated electricity),
artificial gravity to prevent medical complications caused by extended
zero gravity living conditions, and a community size that might
reasonably be expected to be self-sufficient (10,000 is a generally
accepted minimum size). Add to these considerations the need to grow
food to support the community and the need to recycle all waste
streams to conserve water, oxygen and carbon.

Space colonies in the shape of a sphere, a torus, and a cylinder have
been proposed. All of these rotate to provide artificial gravity.
Beyond these basic guidelines you'll have to rely on your own research
and imagination to create your space colony. Good luck.

Chris

--- "tom.bielecki" wrote:

> Hello, my name is Tom Bielecki, and i am a 17 year
> old studnet from
> Calgary, Canada.

Hi Tom, I lived in Calgary for 13 years myself.
Beautiful city.

I think you should have a look at this website:
http://www.permanent.com/index.htm

In particular, the space colonies section.

>
> I am participating in a NASA space settlement
> project (
>
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Contest/
> )
> that gives a very general guidelines for the
> competition, "Students
> develop space settlement designs and related
> materials."
>
> I have had long talks with my biology teacher, my
> physics teacher, and
> my chemistry teacher, and I AM LOOKING FOR YOUR
> INPUT, ON HOW YOU
> THINK LIFE WILL BE LIKE, IN SPACE, IN THE NEXT
> 200-400 YEARS
>
> My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius
> of 2 or 3 KM, and
> a minor radius of 1.5 KM.

That's one fat torus. Not that there's anything wrong
with that...

> Do you think that this
> spinning colony
> should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere?

Yes, definitely. Centripetal acceleration alone is
not enough to hold in the atmosphere.

> if it does, then it
> blocks all UV light, needed by living organisms
> (which can be created
> artificially with lights),

Use windows. Along the inside rim of the torus, these
would amount to skylights. A large mirror located
some distance away from the colony can be angled to
direct sunlight at the hub, and the hub can be
encircled by angled mirrors to redirect the sunlight
through the windows, which would look sort of like
skylights to those inside.

> if it doesn't have a
> ceiling, then
> particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have
> natural UV, and,
> hey, it would look cool. What do you think?

It would definitely be cool. Actually very cool, as
in 3 degrees above absolute zero. Without a complete
enclosure, all of the atmosphere would escape into
space (air pressure would be significantly higher than
the pressure generated by centripetal acceleration).

>
> I am planning on the settlement being a
> technological cocoon for the
> settlers (starting: 500,000 ?).

For this, you should check out Space Settlements: A
Design Study, specifically chapter 4 appendix B.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html

> This would allow the
> citizens to live
> IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve
> centers on the body
> will be able to create more senses in the body...
> possibly even a
> telecommunications link between individuals, to
> "hear what they hear"
> "know what they know" "feel what they feel." I am
> looking at creating
> somewhat Post-human citizens, who are in a symbiosis
> with the
> technology around them.

I'm already in symbiosis with technology. I wear
glasses, and have fillings in my teeth.

> Only basic education will be
> needed. When a
> person does not understand, or know something, they
> can interact with
> the colony's data center, which can feed information
> at the required
> time, to the required individual. It will be like a
> wikipedia,
> accessed by all, at any time.

We already have that. Wikipedia is available 24/7
right now.

> This will truly be a
> utopian society. No
> government. No disease. No money. No businesses. No
> services. People
> FOR the people. It will be fundamentally basic, on
> the social level,
> yet highly advanced, and observed, at the
> technological level. Only
> the best of the best will be chosen to live here, in
> the Lagrange
> orbit, L5.

Lots of people have proposed utopian societies. The
problem lies in the transition between society as it
is and the target utopian society. Every time such a
transition has been attempted in the past, it has led
directly to the death of millions of people.

Honestly, the only way you're going to get no
goverment/disease/money/businesses/services is if
everyone is dead.

> A quantum computer, and server hive will
> reside in the
> center of the colony, provided (near) instant
> answers to all of life's
> questions, if needed.

I sure hope this colony doesn't have any enemies,
because that single computer is one heckuva tempting
target. All the eggs in one basket.

>
> Please reply with your responses. No matter how
> small.
> Also, try to keep yourselves from commenting on each
> others' posts,
> and rely on a response of your own. It is more
> efficient.

That's sort of missing the point of a yahoogroup,
isn't it? ;) Good luck in the contest.

Ed

On Mar 16, 2007, at 04:44 UTC, tom.bielecki wrote:

> I have had long talks with my biology teacher, my physics teacher, and
> my chemistry teacher, and I AM LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT, ON HOW YOU
> THINK LIFE WILL BE LIKE, IN SPACE, IN THE NEXT 200-400 YEARS

That's a very long time from now, given the accelerating pace of
technological change. Go check out the book "The Singularity is Near"
by Ray Kurzweil. He makes very well-supported arguments that the
"singularity" (when nonbiological intelligence outstrips biological,
and proceeds in what would appear to us to be a sudden jump in
capability far beyond anything we've had before) will happen within the
next 50 years or so. Even if he's off by a factor of 2 or 4, that will
happen before your 200-400 year time-frame.

So, by that time, almost all of humanity will be non-biological, and so
considerations your teachers are likely to find sensible (such as
providing food, dealing with radiation, and the need for pesky things
like an atmosphere) will be non-issues except for dedicated nature
preserves.

However, for the sake of a school project, I guess it's reasonable to
ignore that and pretend that the future will be pretty much like the
present except for a wee bit more engineering prowess. That's wrong,
of course, but it'll get you a good grade. :)

> My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius of 2 or 3 KM, and
> a minor radius of 1.5 KM. Do you think that this spinning colony
> should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere?

Well yes, of course it should, if you're assuming biological humans.
Otherwise said humans will object when all the atmosphere vents to
space (walls 1.5 km high will NOT contain it) and they asphyxiate.

> if it does, then it blocks all UV light, needed by living organisms

What? Living organisms don't need UV light; indeed, UV light generally
kills them (or for big multicellular organisms like us, gives us skin
cancer, at least to the extent our cellular repair machinery can't keep
up).

Plants do need visible light to grow, of course, but just because you
have a ceiling doesn't mean it can't be transparent. You *have*
already read some of O'Neill's work, or NASA's Space Settlement Design
Study, right?

> if it doesn't have a ceiling, then
> particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have natural UV, and,
> hey, it would look cool.

Plus everybody dies from the vacuum (unless you assume post-biological
inhabitants).

> I am planning on the settlement being a technological cocoon for the
> settlers (starting: 500,000 ?). This would allow the citizens to live
> IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve centers on the body
> will be able to create more senses in the body... possibly even a
> telecommunications link between individuals, to "hear what they hear"
> "know what they know" "feel what they feel."

You need to decide what your assumptions are. I've a master's degree
in Neuroscience, and I'm a bit skeptical about extending and connecting
biological brains; it would certainly require Nanotechnology (with a
capital N) as well as advanced AI. But once we have those, the
Singularity would indeed be upon us, and pretty soon everybody will be
uploaded anyway and dealing with messy wetware (i.e. biological brains)
will no longer be common.

But do you really want to go into all this in a space settlement design
project?

> I am looking at creating somewhat Post-human citizen,...This will
> truly be a utopian society. No government. No disease. No money. No
> businesses. No services.

And no grades? :) Seriously, unless your teachers are very unusual,
you're going to tank on this project if you put all that stuff in, and
you can *certainly* forget about winning the NASA competition. Just
design a nice futuristic settlement for plain old 20th-century
biological humans; that's what they want to see. And realistically,
trying to design for a post-singularity world is a bit pointless
anyway. As the saying goes, the future is not only stranger than we
imagine, it's stranger than we *can* imagine.

Good luck,
- Joe

P.S. http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/ may be of interest.
Joe Strout -- joe@...

On 3/16/07, tom.bielecki wrote:
(...)
> Hello, my name is Tom Bielecki, and i am a 17 year old studnet from
> Calgary, Canada.

Welcome on board, Tom!

(...)
> My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius of 2 or 3 KM, and
> a minor radius of 1.5 KM. Do you think that this spinning colony
> should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere? if it does, then it
> blocks all UV light, needed by living organisms (which can be created
> artificially with lights), if it doesn't have a ceiling, then
> particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have natural UV, and,
> hey, it would look cool. What do you think?

Of course your torus will need a "ceiling", otherwise air will escape
to space. Actually, the residential and agricultural sectors of it
need to be completely enclosed annd pressurized. UV light is no
problem, since you can project glass windows with filters that let the
desired amount of UV in sunlight enter the colony. (Remember that most
of the UV will have to be filtered, for in fact there is *too much* UV
in sunlight in space. On Earth the UV is nearly completely filtered by
the ozone layer, which is good.) Another solution (which may be more
complicated) is to completely enclose the habitable space in some sort
of opaque material and use artificial lighting. (Again, you can always
engineer lamps that give off UV in frequencies and intensities similar
to those found on Earth surface. And in agricultural sectors you may
indeed change completely the spectrum of the light in order to
maximize crop production.)

> I am planning on the settlement being a technological cocoon for the
> settlers (starting: 500,000 ?). This would allow the citizens to live
> IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve centers on the body
> will be able to create more senses in the body... possibly even a
> telecommunications link between individuals, to "hear what they hear"
> "know what they know" "feel what they feel." I am looking at creating
> somewhat Post-human citizens, who are in a symbiosis with the
> technology around them. Only basic education will be needed. When a
> person does not understand, or know something, they can interact with
> the colony's data center, which can feed information at the required
> time, to the required individual. It will be like a wikipedia,
> accessed by all, at any time. This will truly be a utopian society. No
> government. No disease. No money. No businesses. No services. People
> FOR the people. It will be fundamentally basic, on the social level,
> yet highly advanced, and observed, at the technological level. Only
> the best of the best will be chosen to live here, in the Lagrange
> orbit, L5. A quantum computer, and server hive will reside in the
> center of the colony, provided (near) instant answers to all of life's
> questions, if needed.
(...)

While widespread neural interfaces, quantum servers and so on may be
future developments, my understanding is that the space habitat
contest is intended to use technologies that we already know to work.
Also, as far as I understand the contest is worried about the physical
structure itself and not with how society will work in there. So I
would advise you to be conservative and stick to technical details
(and to existing technologies), and also avoid talking about how
society will work in the torus, unless it is some aspect directly
related to the functioning of the colony/artificial ecosystem.

Also, the 500K number for a colony 3Km in diameter seems too big.
Remember that a lot of the area of this structure will have to be used
for agriculture, and food production and air/water recycling will be
the population limiting factors.

Singularity in 40 years?

Come on! A.I. is just the archetype of the Golem, Pinoccio,
Frankenstein or a S.F. Robot: Is a dream!

A.I. loonies have been predicting the sacred comming of artificial
thinking for more than 50 years already! And, although computer
power have advanced several orders of magnitude, the insight on how
to build A.I.s is just plain childlike.

Uneducated Greeks, when they saw the first automatons back in 5th
century B.C., believed those were "artificial minds". And all those
legends about "speaking heads" during the Middle Ages, talk about
the same thing: automatons.

Let's realize A.I. is just a dream, for now. We need to undestand
human mind a lot better to ever attempt to build a real artificial
mind. It will take perhaps a thousand year more, or, perhaps, it is
just not achievable. Well, for an A.I. I mean something better that
a puppet of exihibition, anyways.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2007, at 04:44 UTC, tom.bielecki wrote:
>
> > I have had long talks with my biology teacher, my physics
teacher, and
> > my chemistry teacher, and I AM LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT, ON HOW YOU
> > THINK LIFE WILL BE LIKE, IN SPACE, IN THE NEXT 200-400 YEARS
>
> That's a very long time from now, given the accelerating pace of
> technological change. Go check out the book "The Singularity is
Near"
> by Ray Kurzweil. He makes very well-supported arguments that the
> "singularity" (when nonbiological intelligence outstrips
biological,
> and proceeds in what would appear to us to be a sudden jump in
> capability far beyond anything we've had before) will happen
within the
> next 50 years or so. Even if he's off by a factor of 2 or 4, that
will
> happen before your 200-400 year time-frame.
>
> So, by that time, almost all of humanity will be non-biological,
and so
> considerations your teachers are likely to find sensible (such as
> providing food, dealing with radiation, and the need for pesky
things
> like an atmosphere) will be non-issues except for dedicated nature
> preserves.
>
> However, for the sake of a school project, I guess it's reasonable
to
> ignore that and pretend that the future will be pretty much like
the
> present except for a wee bit more engineering prowess. That's
wrong,
> of course, but it'll get you a good grade. :)
>
> > My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius of 2 or 3
KM, and
> > a minor radius of 1.5 KM. Do you think that this spinning colony
> > should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere?
>
> Well yes, of course it should, if you're assuming biological
humans.
> Otherwise said humans will object when all the atmosphere vents to
> space (walls 1.5 km high will NOT contain it) and they asphyxiate.
>
> > if it does, then it blocks all UV light, needed by living
organisms
>
> What? Living organisms don't need UV light; indeed, UV light
generally
> kills them (or for big multicellular organisms like us, gives us
skin
> cancer, at least to the extent our cellular repair machinery can't
keep
> up).
>
> Plants do need visible light to grow, of course, but just because
you
> have a ceiling doesn't mean it can't be transparent. You *have*
> already read some of O'Neill's work, or NASA's Space Settlement
Design
> Study, right?
>
> > if it doesn't have a ceiling, then
> > particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have natural UV,
and,
> > hey, it would look cool.
>
> Plus everybody dies from the vacuum (unless you assume post-
biological
> inhabitants).
>
> > I am planning on the settlement being a technological cocoon for
the
> > settlers (starting: 500,000 ?). This would allow the citizens to
live
> > IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve centers on the
body
> > will be able to create more senses in the body... possibly even a
> > telecommunications link between individuals, to "hear what they
hear"
> > "know what they know" "feel what they feel."
>
> You need to decide what your assumptions are. I've a master's
degree
> in Neuroscience, and I'm a bit skeptical about extending and
connecting
> biological brains; it would certainly require Nanotechnology (with
a
> capital N) as well as advanced AI. But once we have those, the
> Singularity would indeed be upon us, and pretty soon everybody
will be
> uploaded anyway and dealing with messy wetware (i.e. biological
brains)
> will no longer be common.
>
> But do you really want to go into all this in a space settlement
design
> project?
>
> > I am looking at creating somewhat Post-human citizen,...This
will
> > truly be a utopian society. No government. No disease. No money.
No
> > businesses. No services.
>
> And no grades? :) Seriously, unless your teachers are very
unusual,
> you're going to tank on this project if you put all that stuff in,
and
> you can *certainly* forget about winning the NASA competition.
Just
> design a nice futuristic settlement for plain old 20th-century
> biological humans; that's what they want to see. And
realistically,
> trying to design for a post-singularity world is a bit pointless
> anyway. As the saying goes, the future is not only stranger than
we

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> Singularity in 40 years?
>
> Come on! A.I. is just the archetype of the Golem, Pinoccio,
> Frankenstein or a S.F. Robot: Is a dream!

Space travel itself was a dream for thousands of years. In
particular, traveling to the Moon was the height of wild fantasy. Wan
Hu, Baron Munchausen, the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel _The Moon Maid_.
But it happened.

A.I. may well take a long, long time. I suppose it could even be an
impossibility (though that smacks of vitalism). But if it is, it has
to be for some reason better than that it hasn't been done already.

Still, I won't fall over in shock if, forty years from now, the
experts predict A.I. "in the next ten years."

>
> Space travel itself was a dream for thousands of years. In
> particular, traveling to the Moon was the height of wild fantasy.
Wan
> Hu, Baron Munchausen, the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel _The Moon
Maid_.
> But it happened.
>
> A.I. may well take a long, long time. I suppose it could even be an
> impossibility (though that smacks of vitalism). But if it is, it
has
> to be for some reason better than that it hasn't been done already.
>
> Still, I won't fall over in shock if, forty years from now, the
> experts predict A.I. "in the next ten years."
>

You bet! That's what I mean. The experts always predict A.I. "in the
next ten years", since the last 50 years. I demand to have a "HAL
9000" at home, and not just this ridiculous PC. Lol!

For A.I. to have a real chance to exist we should know better how N.I.
(natural intelligence) works. That may come in the next centuries, or
it may turn out to be too complex to achieve in thousand of years. For
now it seem to me it is a fantasy, like travelling to the Moon it was
in the Rome of the times of Lucian of Samosata.

Omar Vega

On Mar 17, 2007, at 19:18 UTC, Omar E. Vega wrote:

> Singularity in 40 years?
>
> Come on! A.I. is just the archetype of the Golem, Pinoccio,
> Frankenstein or a S.F. Robot: Is a dream!

No, it seems obvious to me at least that eventually we WILL have
machines with human-level intelligence or better sooner or later,
because our own brains do it, and we're already making great strides in
simulating how our brains do what they do.

> A.I. loonies have been predicting the sacred comming of artificial
> thinking for more than 50 years already! And, although computer
> power have advanced several orders of magnitude, the insight on how
> to build A.I.s is just plain childlike.

There's some truth in this statement, though I think it's greatly
exaggerated. But it doesn't matter -- traditional de-novo creation of
AI isn't necessary, since we're now starting to reverse-engineer the
brain. My background is in neuroscience, and I can tell you that this
progress is quite real.

Given another 40 years, yes, we probably will have beyond-human-level
AI. I'm a little more skeptical about all the magical powers that
Nanotechnology will bring. But time will tell.

> Let's realize A.I. is just a dream, for now. We need to undestand
> human mind a lot better to ever attempt to build a real artificial
> mind. It will take perhaps a thousand year more, or, perhaps, it is
> just not achievable.

A thousand years? No, certainly not. Not a hundred either.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

I will not be getting marks from this. It is purely something flowing
out of my imagination, onto the page. On a philosophical basis, I
would like to create a society that is bare bones basic. A society
that has children grow up in a sterile environment, with nothing
created around them. Just the world itself. This cocoon will be the
garden of eden that we will be able to start a history. I believe that
we should create small habitats, and natural looking enclosures for
people to inhabit in this space settlement. However, the majority of
development should be left to the citizens of the colony itself. With
knowledgeable elders, and a neural network to connect the citizens,
and to discover the fall of intelligent life on earth ( :P ). They can
build around it, and live in a beautiful society.

Sure, my estimate of 200-400 years was pretty far off. I hadn't
bothered to research the expected time-frame of the coming
singularity. I don't believe that the singularity will occur this
quickly (50 years). I believe that moral, ethical efforts will be made
the singularity, to spread out current technology to the corners of
the globe, before worrying about the full integration of technology
into the human body. I think that this settlement might become reality
(well, imaginative reality) in the next 75-100 years.

Now, I don't understand why I could not have an open-top design for
this colony. If I have sufficient radiation shielding around the
habitat (either coiled electricity flow around the circumference, or
using faradays cage), and a large enough circumference, then wouldn't
the centrifugal forces (ya, I said that, haha) hold the atmosphere in
place? If I increase the walls of the habitat, then shouldn't it all
be fine? With regards to temperature, wouldn't the composition of the
atmosphere create a warming effect, much like the earth?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:

In regards to your comment about Present technology:
Quantum Computers absolutely do work, and they will be a huge
advantage to our civilization in the next 100 years. Off the top of my
head, the first 16 qubit quantum computer was tested on February 13
and 15, with a classical equivalent of 2^16 bits, or floating point
operations, which is about 65,536. A professor from Caltech told me
this summer that once we reach around 300 qubits, things will get
"interesting", and these adiabatic quantum computers have been leading
the way.

As for the "extra senses" and the neural network, I know for a fact
that the Navy Seals have been testing some amazing technology which
can "input" information straight from a computer, to our brains, as a
new sense, using 16x16 electrical grids that are placed on your
tongue, or back (?) or another large nerve center. The applications
for this technology are just about endless, and it is a non-invasive
way to add computing power to the human brain.

Now, of course, these technologies must be developed further, but the
basics are already there.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
wrote:
>
> On 3/16/07, tom.bielecki wrote:
> (...)
> > Hello, my name is Tom Bielecki, and i am a 17 year old studnet from
> > Calgary, Canada.
>
> Welcome on board, Tom!
>
> (...)
> > My settlement so far is a torus, with a major radius of 2 or 3
KM, and
> > a minor radius of 1.5 KM. Do you think that this spinning colony
> > should have a "ceiling" to hold in the atmosphere? if it does,
then it
> > blocks all UV light, needed by living organisms (which can be created
> > artificially with lights), if it doesn't have a ceiling, then
> > particles might enter the atmosphere, we would have natural UV, and,
> > hey, it would look cool. What do you think?
>
> Of course your torus will need a "ceiling", otherwise air will escape
> to space. Actually, the residential and agricultural sectors of it
> need to be completely enclosed annd pressurized. UV light is no
> problem, since you can project glass windows with filters that let the
> desired amount of UV in sunlight enter the colony. (Remember that most
> of the UV will have to be filtered, for in fact there is *too much* UV
> in sunlight in space. On Earth the UV is nearly completely filtered by
> the ozone layer, which is good.) Another solution (which may be more
> complicated) is to completely enclose the habitable space in some sort
> of opaque material and use artificial lighting. (Again, you can always
> engineer lamps that give off UV in frequencies and intensities similar
> to those found on Earth surface. And in agricultural sectors you may
> indeed change completely the spectrum of the light in order to
> maximize crop production.)
>
> > I am planning on the settlement being a technological cocoon for the
> > settlers (starting: 500,000 ?). This would allow the citizens to live
> > IN technology, rather than WITH technology. Nerve centers on the body
> > will be able to create more senses in the body... possibly even a
> > telecommunications link between individuals, to "hear what they hear"
> > "know what they know" "feel what they feel." I am looking at creating
> > somewhat Post-human citizens, who are in a symbiosis with the
> > technology around them. Only basic education will be needed. When a
> > person does not understand, or know something, they can interact with
> > the colony's data center, which can feed information at the required
> > time, to the required individual. It will be like a wikipedia,
> > accessed by all, at any time. This will truly be a utopian
society. No
> > government. No disease. No money. No businesses. No services. People
> > FOR the people. It will be fundamentally basic, on the social level,
> > yet highly advanced, and observed, at the technological level. Only
> > the best of the best will be chosen to live here, in the Lagrange
> > orbit, L5. A quantum computer, and server hive will reside in the
> > center of the colony, provided (near) instant answers to all of
life's

Is artificial Intelligence really the transference from brain to
computer?

i was under the impression that within (for sure) 100 years, we will
see computer code created with such complexity, that it will be as
close as possible to the decision making abilities of a human being.
Am I wrong?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

I believe that you misunderstand the true power of the desktop
computer. It is faster, and more powerful than the most powerful
supercomputers many years ago, when they were first coming out. Also,
think of the collective power of all these computers right now!?
Researchers have been using the accumulative intelligence of thousands
of computers around the world to act as a powerful supercomputer.
SETI, and folding@home have both used these very successfully, and I
have taken part in the projects as well. Researchers are even about to
start on a service to use the idle time of the Playstation 3
processing power to do research for them. Incredible.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

How do you feel about power generation?

Nuclear Fusion (cold) is just around the corner (hopefully), and that
might bring about vast quantities of electricity.

I am hoping to have enormous ammounts of energy for my colony, so I do
not believe that solar farms would be sufficient.

Fission reactors in space?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "tom.bielecki"
wrote:

On 19 Mar 2007 18:41:28 -0700, tom.bielecki wrote:
(...)
> Now, I don't understand why I could not have an open-top design for
> this colony. If I have sufficient radiation shielding around the
> habitat (either coiled electricity flow around the circumference, or
> using faradays cage), and a large enough circumference, then wouldn't
> the centrifugal forces (ya, I said that, haha) hold the atmosphere in
> place? If I increase the walls of the habitat, then shouldn't it all
> be fine? With regards to temperature, wouldn't the composition of the
> atmosphere create a warming effect, much like the earth?
(...)

Plans for "open-air" habitats that I have seen call for "large enough
circumferences" of hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. (And that
would require "unobtanium" such as carbon nanotubes, diamondoids and
the like.) You were talking about a habitat 3 Km in diameter, so an
open-air habitat is not an option.

On Mar 20, 2007, at 01:41 UTC, tom.bielecki wrote:

> Now, I don't understand why I could not have an open-top design for
> this colony. If I have sufficient radiation shielding around the
> habitat (either coiled electricity flow around the circumference, or
> using faradays cage), and a large enough circumference, then wouldn't
> the centrifugal forces (ya, I said that, haha) hold the atmosphere in
> place?

No. You can see this in any of three ways:

1. Do the math.
2. Read the works of those who have done the math (e.g. O'Neill).
3. Notice that under a full solid 1G acceleration, Earth's atmosphere
extends at least 100 km up, and really more like 400 km (it's just very
thin for the last several hundred km), so you would need walls that
high to keep it from spilling out the top.

Or, best yet, use a combination of all three. :) Your proposed 1.5-km
walls are too short by at least two orders of magnitude.

> Nuclear Fusion (cold) is just around the corner (hopefully), and
> that might bring about vast quantities of electricity.

It seems highly unlikely to me that cold fusion will ever prove to be
real. I'm also quite skeptical about tokamak reactors. I am, however,
cautiously optimistic that Robert Bussard's "polywell" approach to
fusion might pan out in the next decade or two.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "tom.bielecki"
wrote:
>
> Is artificial Intelligence really the transference from brain to
> computer?
>
> i was under the impression that within (for sure) 100 years, we
will
> see computer code created with such complexity, that it will be as
> close as possible to the decision making abilities of a human
being.
> Am I wrong?
>

People has been predicting A.I. comming since the 1950s. Almost 50
years have passed so far. And, to tell you the truth, I don't see
much advances in the theoretical field of computer science to make
me think something will be achieved soon. Qbits or not, people
really don't know as yet how the brain manage to self-organize and
process information in such a clever way. Perhaps some day we will
know.

However, it is almost a norm that scientists keep downplaying the
complexity of the task. Perhaps to get funds quickly.

Omar Vega

Omar merely pointed out that processing power is not the only consideration. Our programming approach is flawed. Finding the right approach might occur soon, or it might take a long time.

Though not as jaded as Omar (100 yr), there is obviously a difference between building processing power and building artificial intellence.

I offer you an example: the humble honeybee.

With a miniscule brain, barely visible to the human eye (800,000 neurons), and maybe less processing power than your desktop, what amazing things this creature can do?

1. Walk
2. Fly
3. Navigate for 3-4 miles from a hive and return -- even in windy and cloudy conditions.
4. Collect pollen from a range of plants
5. Build a home.
6. Repair hive if damaged
7. Housekeeping: removing detritus from the hive (in the dark)
8. Store pollen and honey
9. Interact with other bees
10. store unborn young
11. feed young
12. know if there is a queen in the hive, and if no queen is present, selectly feed "royal jelly" to one youngling to create a queen.
13. Fight against other animals

OK. That is too many examples with a bad comparison. Insects aren't intelligent. They are only sentient.

If this example that walks, flys, eats, reproduces and avoids swatting is too much, how about a fruit fly (400 neurons)?

From: tom.bielecki
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:57:16 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Space Settlement

I believe that you misunderstand the true power of the desktop
computer. It is faster, and more powerful than the most powerful
supercomputers many years ago, when they were first coming out. Also,
think of the collective power of all these computers right now!?
Researchers have been using the accumulative intelligence of thousands
of computers around the world to act as a powerful supercomputer.
SETI, and folding@home have both used these very successfully, and I
have taken part in the projects as well. Researchers are even about to
start on a service to use the idle time of the Playstation 3
processing power to do research for them. Incredible.

--- In spacesettlers@ yahoogroups. com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> From: Matt Gallimore
> I offer you an example: the humble honeybee.
>
> With a miniscule brain, barely visible to the human eye
> (800,000 neurons), and maybe less processing power than your
> desktop, what amazing things this creature can do?

Then again, the predator UAV can (or rather has demonstrated the capacity
to)
Drive (along runways)
Fly
Navigate across hundreds of miles in zero visibility
Find and kill tanks
Persuad iraqi sldiers to surrender just by staring at them
Unbuild homes and other buildings
Provide assistance to soldiers on the ground
Transmit TV pictures half way round the world
Etc.

In both lists a lot of the capacity boils down to engineering, not
programming. A bee can things a PC cannot because the honey bee can pick
things up. There's also the issue of cost. A roomba 'vacuum robot',
laser-INS or corrected-GPS, robot arm, additional sensors, and wifi
equipment all cost money. Add some kind of futuristic 3D printer so it can
build nests 'n' stuff, and it's cheaper to do the job yourself. As that
stuff gets miniaturised and standardised, costs will come down and it's
likely that the thousands of hobbyists tinkering away at the problems of
weak AI will make some genuine progress.

John