Message: 1
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:05:01 EDT
From: Ravenart@...
Subject: Re: Habitat Population Control

> I don't think it's a big problem, because as long as the fact about the
> limits is communicated upfront from the get-go to any new settlers, the
people
> themselves will decided how to respond to that.

Hi Carl,
Sorry to say that I don't find this response very satisfying - in fact I
thought I had specifically excluded it in my post. Leaving a potentially
vital issue like this completely to our descendants, rather than dealing
with it now, seems to be deliberately indulging ourselves in a lack of
foresight. We haven't yet even got a solid set of specs on the pressure
hull yet, so NOW is the time to start designing in potential solutions (if
possible) - If we refuse to do so, or even consider what steps could be
taken, then we may be leaving (for example) a very messy re-engineering
problem to our sucessors that could be trivially solved in initial
construction.

> It dosen't take government to
> deal with that. It take free-flowing price to send signs to the market
that the
> habital is becoming crowded. Even the market is changing in NYC under the
> sight as stock market, the last major industry, is disappearing into
cyberspace,
> reducing the need for large office space which is forcing many owners to
> change their office building into apartments and condos.

With all due resepect, you don't seem to be looking far enough ahead.
When all of the offices have been converted to ultra high density tenements
with families of ten sleeping in what we would call broom closet sized
spaces, and your life support system is running itself to death to support a
population twice as large as the absolute
we-had-an-emergency-and-had-to-take-on-refugees-and-survivors limit; then
what? What business mechanism do you propose? Is it even possible to
formulate a rational (and enforcable) population control policy at that
point?

> Botton line, we don't need governments, we need visionary businessmen who
can
> look at problem and see gold for which they may earn by offering
solutions.

I look forward to hearing your insights on this.

> Carl E. Mullin
> visionary artist and entrepreneur
> homo asteralis

[]

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ryan Z
Subject: Re: Habitat Population Control

> Giovanni,

> I really do not consider resource limitation to be
> an issue at all. One of the most attractive parts of
> the island colonies are their modular approach. When
> population demands more, just add more. This could
> come in terms of adding another torus for agriculture
> production or another habitat for existing
> populations.

This sidesteps my first two axioms. Please not that my arguments were
directed specifically at situations involving a single habitat. When adding
on to a habitat, and indeed in any construction, the amount of material on
hand is NOT your only limit or consideration. You must have, for instance,
skilled labor and the money to pay them. In expanding the habitat, how long
can you add on before encountering the limits of your engineering ability?
Is a spinning cylinder which was originally designed as a spinning torus
have any limitations? Is it as stable? How many orders of magnitude can
you increase the radius of the habitat? If adding agricultural areas, what
sort of arrangements need to be regarding sunlight? Will you need to add or
expand mirrors? How big can they get? How many can you have before
diminishing returns set in?

> The raw materials in space are mind boggling and do
> not quite equate to Earth mode of thinking. Between
> the moon and near earth asteroids, there is plenty of
> metals to be had for construction and regolith for
> shielding. As we expand outwards, we'll eventually
> hit upon the asteroid belt which should keep us
> supplied at least through the next millineum.

As I said, my arguments were directed at a _single habitat_ situation.
Constructing a new habitat is 'out of bounds', but probably doesn't solve
the problem anyhow - construction also takes labor and capital. I'm willing
to bet that any new habitat will reach its population limit quickly - if for
no other reason than the fact that selling the living space before and
during construction will be a major source of revenue to help complete it.
Those organizing the financing will want to make a profit, and will have a
motive for keeping prices high; or perhaps they'll want to reserve major
portions for their own uses - estates, descendants and such-like. Probably,
the workers building the habitat will want a piece of the pie too - and
they'll want to better themselves by getting more space in the new habitat
than they had in the old one.... If constructing a new habitat was within
the scope of the argument, then I am still unwilling to accept it as a
handwave panacea.

> Due to all of these issues, I do not believe
> population control will be an issue. In fact, I would
> think a boom in population as usually happens during a
> period of expansion to occur.

As a mildly irrelevant aside, I have occasionally heard habitats put
forward as the ultimate generation-ships. Moving much slower than light
speed, they could bridge the interstellar gulfs without regard for having to
find a habitable planet at their destination. In the middle of such a trip,
is new construction really an option?

> Ryan Z

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my thoughts.

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:55:19 -0000
From: "victoriatangoman"
Subject: Re: Habitat Population Control

[]

> Hi. It's nice to hear a new voice. Here's my take on your axioms and
> argument.

> I pretty much agree with axiom 1.

[]

> I'd say that they probably would allow for some growth
> over time, so they wouldn't fill it up to the max immediately. But
> growth would be limited and some population control measures would
> be necessary. It may be that the population would be temporary
> workers on assignment for 5 years and then return to Earth.

I am glad we agree here; though honestly I was hoping that by stating
the axioms as such, I could put them out-of-bounds and get down to the nuts
and bolts of the actual population control issue. Still, the 'Population of
Temporary Workers' angle is interesting.... Would such a population be
single-gender? Just unmarried folks? Assuming a mixed bachelor and
bachelorette population, would marriage then be discouraged? What about
accidents and outright defiance? In the case of families, would childbirth
be forbidden, or controlled? And if controlled, then controlled how? Would
population control even be an issue - if your temporary population is much
smaller than the maximum population, and has a staggeringly huge growth rate
of 5%, you won't hit the limits before you sent them all home. What about
the expense of the return tickets though? Who pays? And what about folks
who can't pay?

> At the other extreme, an Island 3, with a population limit of
> 10,000,000 will take a long time to fill up.

[]
True, it IS a longer term process on larger habitats; but it will reach
the limits in finite time. So I hope that our discussion here will be
fruitful, even for them.

> The interior construction work will require different skill sets and
> robots than the equipment and skills needed to fabricate the
> pressure shell and establish the biocylinder, so if the population
> planning models call for another Habitat in X years time, this can
> be planned for and built while the population grows.

Good point that - is part of the tax structure a 'Social Security' type
fund, saved against the day a new habitat is needed?

> Your second axiom is also true but too narrowly defined. ISTM that
> you're looking within the Habitat as the arena in which the
> technology must be applied to overcome the problem. If more CO2 in a
> plant growing environment will yield higher biomass output, then
> technology can try to find a way to replicate the process without
> CO2, or we can just process some NEO Methane Ice and pump it into
> the plant growing pod and we haven't robbed the existing biotorus of
> its stock of CO2.

No, I consider the entire construct as a single unit for purposes of our
discussion here. If a semi-urban population area has attached, associated,
remotely connected - or whatever - agricultural areas, then the agricultural
areas obviously are considered along with the population they support. And
my second axiom applies: there is still a limit to how efficient your
technology at the moment can make those ag areas.

> Your third axiom also rings true but I don't see it as a problem
> because new Habitats can be built.

The third axiom was intended to be considered in light of the other two;
putting new construction out of bounds. Start with any colony with ample
room, then the population fills it (a century goes by...). Now, the wise
ruling body builds extra living area and agricultural resources to the
absolute limit of their engineering ability with the amazingly improved
materials now developed, and the population fills it (more time passes).
Now the wise and benevolent ruling body, already at the limits of
construction, upgrades all the life support systems at great expense, and
the agricultural areas - already very productive - are made incredibly more
so; then the population fills it... and my discussion BEGINS. The point
was, and is, once the actual, honest and for true, we just CANNOT by any
means support more population in a single habitat, limit is reached (or even
just approached) and new construction isn't an option - then what?

> I'm in agreement with your position only if the citizen's of the
> first Habitat's are there on temporary assignments. Then there'll be
> little need to expand unless it's warranted by the export economy.
> There could be room for 8000 workers and 2000 children. The workers
> would be selected for small family size and births would be planned
> for, but after a period the workers would go back to Earth and new
> singles and couples would go up.

Ok, as I said - it's an interesting scenario, but it does sidestep the
issue a bit, since it isn't a population that you have to provide for in the
future, e.g. - they aren't actually colonists. Hard to imagine companies
wanting to put up with population of workers - given a labor force limited
by life support and transportation costs - many of whom don't work (being
children - who need their own infrastructure - or otherwise employed
spouses).

> If, OTOH, we're talking about permanent settlers, then I think
> there'll be different dynamics at work.

[]

> On Earth, as you've undoubtedly noticed, there are complicating
> factors that are assoicated with economic growth. In orbit, that
> growth and prosperity will have other issues to deal with but lack
> of space and overcrowding will probably not be significant.

Um. Is this a handwave? I'm not too worried about the economy... but
the whole issue of population growth and control is precisely what I'd like
to address. In fact, see my paragraph you quoted below....

>> I don't mean to start up the whole Fascist Blood-slinging feud
>> again, but it has surprised me that nobody has approached the issue
>> of breeding from the rather obvious (and I hope relevant) angle of
>> population control and life support stresses.

> Yes, this is an obvious issue but I think you need to lay out an
> argument for why it is relevant. What would prohibit the
> construction of new Habitats and the resulting growth in economy,
> citizen mobility, and sheer variety of experiences?

I'd thought that I had placed construction of a new habitat out of
bounds; but my apologies if that was not clear. If a new habitat is
factored in, I am still not sure that it is a magical cure all... though
your idea of setting funding aside for new habitat construction is a very
good idea, and a great example of planning today for the problem tomorrow.
Still, there are issues with new habitats; I'd hoped to leave them off and
concentrate on the issues surrounding policy in a habitat as it approaches
the limits of its resources.

> I think that once the investment has been made in the mining,
> refining, and fabrication infrastructure required to construct the
> pressure shells of the Habitats that there would be little call for
> all that capital and the human talent to sit idle.

As I said, this is an area I'd hoped to avoid; it is too short term -
the colonies, no matter how many you build, will fill. It is when they are
filled that I wish to examine. Also, the human talent needs to be paid, and
I am not convinced that two days after the completion of the pressure hull
of the first (or any habitat) will be a time with gobs of free capital to
throw around... I tend to think all available capital will be sunk in the
new habitat, which can only just get started paying for itself.

> There's no way
> that they mining could continue only to supply the interior
> construction of buildings, etc. The demand scales are too far apart.
> And if you can sell the land of the new Habitat to new settlers and
> businesses, then you're growing the economy, creating wealth, and
> diversifying the industrial infrastructure.

Of course selling land in a habitat being constructed is a major source
of revenue for the construction of that habitat... but I'd hoped to
concentrate on other areas of discussion than habitat construction.

> The second habitat would be less expensive because all of that
> supporting infrastructure would be considered a sunk cost. After
> that first Habitat of 10,000 permanent settlers the administrators
> would ask themselves, "if we had another 10,000 people, what could
> they do up here?" There would be a bigger domestic market so some
> products could now be built in orbit rather than imported, and
> perhaps more products can be exported. Also, consider the liquidity
> of individual capital tied up in Habitat real estate. If there are
> only 10,000 people there, and you want to sell your condo and move
> up, you've got little opportunity, but if the population is always
> increasing, you could decide to move on to the new Habitat and sell
> your condo to a newcomer.

> Finally, no more imports of toilet paper and toothbrushes. Now there
> is a toilet paper factory in orbit :) :) :)

(*Sigh*) Not to sound monotonous, but construction of a new habitat is
sidestepping the issue I was hoping to discuss here. Of course I agree
whole-heartedly that more habitats means a more robust, profitable, and
self-sufficient space economy and civilization; and that this is a VERY GOOD
thing. But even allowing construction of new habitats isn't a panacea, and
it is not self evident that it would be trivially easy; if the first habitat
cost hundreds of billions of Y2K US dollars (to establish all of the
required infrastructure for constrution) and the second habitat only costs
10% of the first... you are still faced with the problem of raising tens of
billions of Y2K US dollars from an orbital population of ten thousand. If
you say that the new habitat is funded from Terra, then you haven't solved
the first habitats population pressure problem - there will be Terran
colonists moving in.

>> In the past, this issue has been hand-waved away under the
>> presumption that 'Oh, the people living there will sort it all out,
>> I guess'; but eventually we may run into the limits which constrain
>> us here on Terra....
>> Just my two cents - anyone else have a take on this?

> EVENTUALLY we will run into the same limits. There's a lot of mass
> and energy in orbit. Perhaps when the population in orbit is 3,000
> times that of Earth, we'll have to confront the limits to growth
> issue, but should the Pilgrams of Early America have practiced birth
> control and conservation when they had an empty continent before
> them?

Birth control? Maybe not - their infant mortality rate (Heck - their
overall mortality rate) was high enough that they had enough trouble as it
was. But maybe a little more conservation would have been nice, even then.
In any event, I am not advocating that we begin practicing birth control now
for the purpose of preventing population pressure on as yet non-existent
colonies; so that argument seems to be a straw man. I am suggesting that we
think rationally now about what to do when the air runs out, just as I think
the pilgrims could have rationally thought about what their descendants may
have to face when the land ran out - granted that very few of them probably
thought much beyond their grandchildren.

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:24:50 -0000
From: "victoriatangoman"
Subject: Re: Habitat Population Control

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Giovanni"
> wrote:

>> It seems reasonable to conclude that population control will
>> be a vitally important issue in any habitat, especially when the
>> limits of the life support system are being reached. So, what
>> measures would be rational, with regards to limiting the
>> population? Can it be done without continuous governmental
>> intrusion? Would any such measures be Eugenics? How could abuses
>> be discouraged? What about people who defy the policy, and their
>> children?

> Here are some policy ramifications from a limited population growth
> strategy.

> Older, but not better, in Italy
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/969654.asp?0dm=T26CN

> TangoMan

Thanks for the link, haven't looked at it yet; but very interested in
anything related to the topic.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:

> I am glad we agree here; though honestly I was hoping that by
stating
> the axioms as such, I could put them out-of-bounds and get down to
the nuts
> and bolts of the actual population control issue.

Your opening sentence summarizes our issues very succinctly. You
want the axioms to restrict the range of debate to a very narrow set
of circumstances that FORCE population control to be practiced. I
tried to play along, in the spirit of debate, by finding a situation
where I thought this could be an outcome. That would be the
temporary worker scenario.

The reason I had trouble playing along is that I think that your
axioms don't account for some real-life dynamics. Try and find me
any business that has as its goal no revenue growth. Try to find me
a national economy that looks for no growth - that is striving for a
static level of production, population, resource use, etc. This just
doesn't happen.

This human characteristic will also be in orbit. If you've sunk
billions into mining, refining, fabricating infrastructure for
Habitat construction your going to want to use it more than just
once.

If you have a factory to make refridgerators in orbit, then the
prospect of more consumers will be appealing, the costs of the
appliances can be lowered,the volume produced will increase, etc.

This is a hugely important dynamic at work that your axioms ignore.

Still, the 'Population of
> Temporary Workers' angle is interesting.... Would such a
population be
> single-gender? Just unmarried folks? Assuming a mixed bachelor
and
> bachelorette population, would marriage then be discouraged? What
about
> accidents and outright defiance?

It could be mixed gender. You're sent up there on a contract. If you
defy the contract or accidently get pregnant then you're in
violation of the terms. You could get sent back to Earth and lose
your completion bonus or forfeit other benefits.

In the case of families, would childbirth
> be forbidden, or controlled?

I'd say controlled. Probably worked into the terms of your 5 year
contract.

> And if controlled, then controlled how?

Perhaps you bid for the right to have a child? You do this in the
contract negotiation stage before you go up to the Habitat. This way
management can control for growth over time.

Perhaps the "child clause" is relaxed for those workers who are
getting older. But it still has to be planned if the Habitat is
going to be operating at the edge of its resource limits.

Would
> population control even be an issue - if your temporary population
is much
> smaller than the maximum population, and has a staggeringly huge
growth rate
> of 5%, you won't hit the limits before you sent them all home.
What about
> the expense of the return tickets though? Who pays? And what
about folks
> who can't pay?

These are good questions. I'm only advocating the temporary worker
solution as a means of engaging in your scenario, not as something
that I think is an ideal situation, for the very questions you've
raised. I guess the expense of sending them home is built into the
arrangement. The worker is sent up to the Habitat in order to
produce X amount of economic value over a period of time. The costs
of maintaining that worker have to be less than the value of his
production or the whole rationale for the Habitat falls apart.

> > At the other extreme, an Island 3, with a population limit of
> > 10,000,000 will take a long time to fill up.
>
> []
> True, it IS a longer term process on larger habitats; but it
will reach
> the limits in finite time. So I hope that our discussion here
will be
> fruitful, even for them.

Yes, it will fill up over time. Once again I come back to the human
dynamic. Why would they purposely seek to prohibit growth beyond the
original Habitat? Your axioms lay that out but don't explain why.

> > The interior construction work will require different skill sets
and
> > robots than the equipment and skills needed to fabricate the
> > pressure shell and establish the biocylinder, so if the
population
> > planning models call for another Habitat in X years time, this
can
> > be planned for and built while the population grows.
>
> Good point that - is part of the tax structure a 'Social
Security' type
> fund, saved against the day a new habitat is needed?

Sure, but it's even simpler than that: there is money to be made in
having a larger population if they are all productive. Growth is
good for the economy and bad for pressures on finite resources.
Growth is a big motivator and stasis is limiting and depressing.
You'll need to come up with a good reason to choose stasis. The
resources for Habitat expansion are already there, and the work of
the shell construction is more automated and productive than all of
the detail work that the interiors will require with all of the
transportation, housing, etc requirements.

> No, I consider the entire construct as a single unit for
purposes of our
> discussion here. If a semi-urban population area has attached,
associated,
> remotely connected - or whatever - agricultural areas, then the
agricultural
> areas obviously are considered along with the population they
support. And
> my second axiom applies: there is still a limit to how efficient
your
> technology at the moment can make those ag areas.

I'm all for playing "what-if" for it can be very illuminating so to
follow your restrictions I would say that no matter the size of the
Habitat under discussion, it will be designed for a maximum
population size and it must be operated under those limits. If
technology is developed that can increase the limits of one of the
sub-systems, that in and of itself, may not be sufficient to
increase the limits on the other systems. They all have to rise in
lockstep to support population levels above the design limit.

You could invoke magic to make all resources vanish, so now there is
no choice but to live within the confines of the Habitat. Absent
something like that though, I just can't see expansion stopping.
Look at what's happened with oil exploration. A hundred years ago,
who would have thought that we'd be drilling off-shore? Activities
expand.

Again I'm taking the out that you're trying to restrict. Or I'm
suggesting that a Habitat can't exceed a population limit.

> The third axiom was intended to be considered in light of the
other two;
> putting new construction out of bounds. Start with any colony
with ample
> room, then the population fills it (a century goes by...). Now,
the wise
> ruling body builds extra living area and agricultural resources to
the
> absolute limit of their engineering ability with the amazingly
improved
> materials now developed, and the population fills it (more time
passes).
> Now the wise and benevolent ruling body, already at the limits of
> construction, upgrades all the life support systems at great
expense, and
> the agricultural areas - already very productive - are made
incredibly more
> so; then the population fills it... and my discussion BEGINS. The
point
> was, and is, once the actual, honest and for true, we just CANNOT
by any
> means support more population in a single habitat, limit is
reached (or even
> just approached) and new construction isn't an option - then what?

Your very restrictive scenario leads me to conclude that population
control measures must be introduced! Now you restrict child birth to
replacement level rates. You probably punish the transgressors with
heavy fines and taxes for "illegal births." Maybe you have a lottery
to allow for birth. Maybe you buy licenses. To safeguard the
civilization, perhaps everyone is temporarily sterilized and when
they have permission to procreate, then the sterilization is
reversed. I think that these measures should pretty much manage to
control and maintain a static population level.

> Um. Is this a handwave? I'm not too worried about the
economy... but
> the whole issue of population growth and control is precisely what
I'd like
> to address.

No, it's not a handwave. I think the economy will be a prime driver
in the expansion of an orbital civilization for from increased
population will come economic strength and diversity.

> I am not convinced that two days after the completion of the
pressure hull
> of the first (or any habitat) will be a time with gobs of free
capital to
> throw around... I tend to think all available capital will be sunk
in the
> new habitat, which can only just get started paying for itself.

For endeavors of this magnitutde I think we all need to cast off our
mindsets which presume that "Bob & Frank's Orbital Habitat
Construction Company" is the only one involved. I think that there
will be a number of actors, including governments of some sort
involved. Hospital construction capital will come from a different
source than the shoe factory's capital and from the residential
construction inventory's capital. But all that aside, if you've
eliminated the option of expansion beyond a set limit, then no
matter whether on Earth or in a Habitat, social policies have to be
established that limit freedom in a variety of forms. How do you
think that freedoms will be limited?

> Of course selling land in a habitat being constructed is a
major source
> of revenue for the construction of that habitat... but I'd hoped to
> concentrate on other areas of discussion than habitat construction.

OK, I hope you see that I'm trying to play along and just accept the
scenario you've proposed. The rebuttals from my earlier post had to
be stated, perhaps just to define the actual terms of your scenario,
because IMHO, they are likely responses to the crisis that will be
formenting in your scenario.

> I am suggesting that we
> think rationally now about what to do when the air runs out, just
as I think
> the pilgrims could have rationally thought about what their
descendants may
> have to face when the land ran out - granted that very few of them
probably
> thought much beyond their grandchildren.
>

Sorry, I can't resist :-) LOL. What did early settlers do when
things got too crowded in New Amsterdam? LOL.

Seriously though. I think population control, state planning, career
allotments, education allotments, tracking or channeling of
childrens talents are all likely outcomes of a "limit to growth."
Such State involvement makes the prospect of state-directed eugenics
a more likely outcome. You probably have detected the freedom-
depriving theme of my responses to the limit to growth scenario.
Further, I think innovation will wither because if you need x
engineers in the waste control station, y agronimists for fruit
production, z health care workers for the elderly, k teachers for
7th grade, etc, and everything is static, then there is no room for
innovation, and even if there was, the economics of implementing the
new innovation probably wouldn't make sense because there would be a
very finite market with no prospect of expansion. Lastly, a likely
outcome of this scenario would be enforced euthanasia for those who
exceed their alloted time within the Habitat for to let them live
would curtail the numbers of births that year, which would impact on
school class size 10 years hence, and a shortage of some essential
worker 25 years hence. So when your ticket is called, it's time to
get it punched and you do that for the good of the society. Your
personal dignity is not an issue and you've lived your life without
the inalienable human rights you've learned that others possess.

How's that for a pessimistic view of the future? :)

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:

> In expanding the habitat, how long
> can you add on before encountering the limits of your engineering
ability?
> Is a spinning cylinder which was originally designed as a spinning
torus
> have any limitations? Is it as stable? How many orders of
magnitude can
> you increase the radius of the habitat? If adding agricultural
areas, what
> sort of arrangements need to be regarding sunlight? Will you need
to add or
> expand mirrors? How big can they get? How many can you have
before
> diminishing returns set in?

I'm not so sure that you can add onto a completed Habitat. You can't
stop the thing from spinning or there will be all sorts of mayhem
inside. You can't start willy-nilly adding mass all over because
thay might affect the balance, precession, etc.

I tend to think of a Habitat as a completed piece of engineering. It
would be interesting to contemplate how one could add onto a Habitat.

TangoMan

On Tuesday 23 September 2003 21:55, victoriatangoman wrote:
(...)
> I'm not so sure that you can add onto a completed Habitat. You can't
> stop the thing from spinning or there will be all sorts of mayhem
> inside. You can't start willy-nilly adding mass all over because
> thay might affect the balance, precession, etc.
>
> I tend to think of a Habitat as a completed piece of engineering. It
> would be interesting to contemplate how one could add onto a Habitat.
(...)

I have already thought lengthly about modular habitats and the best idea that
I came with was something that I call simply "the matrix" (a worn-out name,
but I was too lazy to come up with a better option :-).

Think of a grid in space. For sake of simplicity, assume a square grid (though
I would prefer a triangular one). The grid is composed by bars, say, one
kilometer long, interconnected in squares. The hubs (points where four bars
get together) have contactless (magnetic) docks for space habitats and each
hub has an habitat with one of its "poles" docked to it. The rotation with
one habitat will not affect the others or the grid, since the system is
contactless. (And it would be advisable to keep equal numbers of habitats
spinning clockwise and counterclockwise, so that you cancel gyroscopic effect
and then can keep the structure pointing toward the Sun.)

Then you can have a variety of habitats of different shapes and sizes
interconnected, provided that (a) their maximum allowed diameter is the grid
cell length (one kilometer in my example) and (b) they use a standard dock.
The grid can have a transportation system that exchanges cargo and passenger
pods between the habitats. The system would be infinitely expansible: if you
need more habitats, just add more cells (i.e., interconnet some bars) and
then you have new habitat docks where you can construct new colonies in the
matrix.

One may ask what would be the advantage of the Matrix when compared to simply
building a lot of habitats in different orbits or different places in the
same orbit. The answers are:

- The habitats would be much closer in the matrix, and transit times between
any two habitats would be much shorter than when dealing with orbit
transfers.
- Transportation pods would move without the need of propellants, using just
electric energy, thus reducing consumption of volatiles.
- At some extent, the grid architecture would allow some redundancy and thus
more safety. For instance, instead of having one energy supply per habitat
(which would leave the habitat powerless in case of catastrophic failure) you
can put your solar generators in the grid itself and make power generation
and distribution a shared system, completely robust to failure in isolated
cells.

Hmmm, I'm having a dejavu feeling... Have I already exposed this idea here? I
think I'm getting old. :-)

Lucio

Hi,

Do we need 20 line signature files?
It takes up a lot of space.

>The raw materials in space are mind boggling and do
>not quite equate to Earth mode of thinking. Between
>the moon and near earth asteroids, there is plenty of
>metals to be had for construction and regolith for
>shielding.

The majority of the asteroids are not metal-based.
How do you propose extracting and purifying the metals in a zero-G environment?

>I do not believe population control will be an issue.

It is an issue now and we have an entire planet to use, so it would
certainly be an issue for a much smaller space settlement.

>In fact, I would think a boom in population as usually happens during a
>period of expansion to occur.

No. Expansion occurs after local resources are spent, or stretched to the
limit. A population boom will cause an expansion, not necessarily the other
way around.

>> A sustainable ecosystem, base on Terran life, cannot exist in a space
>> settlement smaller than the surface area of a planet.
>
>With all due respect, there isn't a shred of evidence for this view.

An understanding of population dynamics in biological systems would help to
appreciate my point. I'm proposing an Autopoiesis model from space
colonisation, not an Allopoiesis model. Perhaps, therein lies the confusion.

>Since one can purchase small bottles with brine shrimp and a bit
>of other stuff in closed bottle that will survive for years

That seems cruel.
In zoos, when elephants "sway from side to side" it is because they are
suffering from intense psychological distress caused by prolonged
captivity. If we are going to take animals with us into space then we need
to raise the issue of animal cruelty, by prolonged confinement.

>For radiation protect similar to Earth you need twice the mass of the
>atmosphere per unit surface area. You need 2x since the Earth blocks
>almost all cosmic radiation coming from below so the dosage coming from
>any one direction needs to be cut in half.

If you're on the inner surface of a cyclinder then you'll, effectively,
have two atmospheres of stuff above you, but only one outer hull below you.

>The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
>orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth in
>usable real estate.

1 Ceres (the largest asteroid) makes up more mass than all the other
asteroids combined and it is not metallic. Neither is 2 pallas, the 3rd
largest asteroid.

Assuming it was all metallic, and you on the inner surface of a cyclinder:
to achieve 150 Earth surface areas you are talking about a hull less than 1
metre thick and with a massive tensile strength. 1 metre is inadequate
(unless it is made of rare-earth elements) to protect against cosmic
radiation or hold in one atmospheric pressure.

Does anyone have any information about how many anti-oxidants they pump
into astronauts before they go up? or any info on the genetci mutation in
astronauts?

>Boy oh boy, did you come to the right place.

That's why I joined :]

>I apologize if I'm presuming too much, but it appears you
>haven't really seen much of the science and concepts that O'Neill et
>al have developed.

I'm in Australia. Our exposure to space-related media is very limited. It's
probably cause we have so many bloody UFOs that the media rarely reports on
anything that would make people look up at the sky. We have no space
industry. We are almost wholey reliant on the net for space stuff.

If it wasn't for Star trek, the occassional astronomy magazine or an
american satellite with a plutonium reactor about to fall on Sydney, then
sadly most Australians aren't interested in space beyond: "don't the stars
look pretty tonight"

>Perhaps we can guide you
Kewl. I'll read through the links.

A good thing about not being exposed to all the old media is that I can
approach it with a fresh mind and question everything that doesn't sound
right (to me).

>where they left off, but recall that these guys were damn smart,

I joined MENSA when I was 19yo with 99% I should be able to logically
counter any points I disagree with. If not, then I'm wrong, and I learn
something.

>withstood much scrutiny over the last 30 years

Theoretical work is hard to scrutinise. That's what makes it a good job to
get paid for :]

>If you can look into the details I think you'll see where some of us
>picked up our mindsets.

I'm sure my biology degree, pro-terraforming and pro-venus views are
sneaking through also :]

>to someone who looks at it with an open mind.

an open mind is an important thing if you want to debate an issue

>Usually people arrive to this list already convinced
>but still persist in their Mars visions.

It's almost like they've turned it into a religion. They want so
desperately to believe in space-exploration that they attach to the first
idea they encounter and stick to it, even if it's unrealistic. It's almost
fanatical.

If only we could use their powers for good...

>I've never personally encountered a Mars person who has switched to the
>High Frontier.

I made one cry.
I felt bad, but she thanked me afterwards for disproving her points.

>I think our community will have acheived something if we can bring
>you on board as an allie.

If you can incorporate biodiversity and help me find a solution to the
cosmic radiation problem, then I'm there, future disagreements permitting.

>but I've grown tired of the Mars crowd

It's only just recently that NASA opened up an Astrobiology centre in the
building next door, and started taking PhD students. The people there are
very pro-mars and very anti-everything else. They ignore anything that
disagrees with their current line of thought. It's very annoying.

>that developed that genetic varieties because of the very problem

Those bananas have been engineered to counter the threat, not to increase
the diversity of the bananas gene pool. The "old" banana will die out and
be replaced with the new GM banana clones. but what about a new threat? it
would mean creating a new GM variety. do we endlessly produce new varieties
of GM clones? The survival of the super-banana will then rely heavily on
our technological industries.

Take care
Michael

Michael wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Do we need 20 line signature files?
> It takes up a lot of space.
>

That they do lol

>
> >I apologize if I'm presuming too much, but it appears you
> >haven't really seen much of the science and concepts that O'Neill et
> >al have developed.
>
> I'm in Australia. Our exposure to space-related media is very limited.
> It's
> probably cause we have so many bloody UFOs that the media rarely
> reports on
> anything that would make people look up at the sky. We have no space
> industry. We are almost wholey reliant on the net for space stuff.
>
> If it wasn't for Star trek, the occassional astronomy magazine or an
> american satellite with a plutonium reactor about to fall on Sydney, then
> sadly most Australians aren't interested in space beyond: "don't the stars
> look pretty tonight"
>
> Take care
> Michael
>
If you had been in Canberra last month you could have gone to a
Seminar/forum on Science and Business in Space ( Was broadcast at a
later date on Radio National as part of the Buzz ) which was part of
National Science week, it was pretty well attended by a wide variety of
people. (I posted a list of topics covered on the ssi list on the
19/8/2003 if you want to search the archives)

I would definitely disagree about us having no space business, it is
just they aren't publicized very much. As one example one of the
speakers at the seminar was the CEO of Electro Optic Systems -
http://www.eos-aus.com/default.htm . As part of their work with lasers
over the years they have a method of using them to provide altitude
boost using ablative plasma propulsion, basically hitting the satellite
with a laser taking off the outer two layers of atoms and providing
propulsion in the process. They are also looking at this as a method of
dealing with Space Debris using the same method. This came from their
working in using lasers to track Space Debris, along with Satellite
ranging. Could be quite eerie standing on the local oval looking up at
the stars and seeing their laser stab out from Mt Stromlo, as it was
tracking a satellite. Unfortunately the facility was lost as part of
the January bushfires.

Not sure if you consider Uni based research industry or not, but for a
prime example (which does get publicity) There is hyshot at UQ (
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/hyshot.phtml )

While the public in general doesn't seem overlly interested, I would
hardly call that unique in the world. IIRC the Australian Mars Society
chapter is one of the most active in the world. ( though it is a number
of years since I read about that snippet of info so may not be the case
any more )

Speaking of info on the net, Spacedaily.com ( http://www.sapcedaily.com
) is run from south of Sydney.

One of the good things about living in Canberra, The stars are usually
quite pretty at night ;)

Brett

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Michael wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do we need 20 line signature files?
> It takes up a lot of space.

That comes with the digest delivery.
Don't have any e-mails delivered and just go to the website to catch
up at your leisure.

> >The raw materials in space are mind boggling and do
> >not quite equate to Earth mode of thinking. Between
> >the moon and near earth asteroids, there is plenty of
> >metals to be had for construction and regolith for
> >shielding.
>
> The majority of the asteroids are not metal-based.

That doesn't matter so much when you can use the entire volume of
the asteroid.

> How do you propose extracting and purifying the metals in a zero-G
environment?

Go to www.permanent.com for a quick overview.

Further, there is still much work to be done on the countless isues
that confront Human habitation of space. Consider the paucity of
research dedicated to space in light of total worldwide research
spending.

The not knowing all of the details at this point is not a
showstopper for any concept.

> >I do not believe population control will be an issue.
>
> It is an issue now and we have an entire planet to use, so it would
> certainly be an issue for a much smaller space settlement.

To nit pick - No, we don't have an entire planet to use, only the
surface area of the land to an economic depth of perhaps 0.5
kilometer. Some more valuable resources are worth the cost of
digging deeper. The vast bulk of the earth really serves only one
purpose - gravity.

Space settlers will have access to more usable mass and cheaper
access to high temperatures and electricity. Think what can be done
with that.

> >In fact, I would think a boom in population as usually happens
during a
> >period of expansion to occur.
>
> No. Expansion occurs after local resources are spent, or stretched
to the
> limit. A population boom will cause an expansion, not necessarily
the other
> way around.

There is no cause and effect in either the original point, nor in
your rebuttal. The effects may happen but identifying the cause is
not so straightforward.

> >> A sustainable ecosystem, base on Terran life, cannot exist in a
space
> >> settlement smaller than the surface area of a planet.
> >
> >With all due respect, there isn't a shred of evidence for this
view.
>
> An understanding of population dynamics in biological systems
would help to
> appreciate my point. I'm proposing an Autopoiesis model from space
> colonisation, not an Allopoiesis model. Perhaps, therein lies the
confusion.

That was very clear from the outset, and was easily deduced from the
lines of arguments you were advancing. My input into this point is
that you're making autopoisis synonymous with sustainable. To
sustain an ecosystem in a Habitat one could involve human oversight,
technology, and external resources. While an autopoiesistic system
is an admirable goal to aim for, it is by no means a necessary
precursor to Habitat construction.

> 1 Ceres (the largest asteroid) makes up more mass than all the
other
> asteroids combined and it is not metallic. Neither is 2 pallas,
the 3rd
> largest asteroid.
>
> Assuming it was all metallic, and you on the inner surface of a
cyclinder:
> to achieve 150 Earth surface areas you are talking about a hull
less than 1
> metre thick and with a massive tensile strength. 1 metre is
inadequate
> (unless it is made of rare-earth elements) to protect against
cosmic
> radiation or hold in one atmospheric pressure.

I always took this point as being illustrative of the concept of
thoroughly using volume rather than just surface material.

This volume could be used for many habitats not just one large one.

Atmospheric pressure containment can be achieved with less than a
meter of thickness if you use multiple habitats.

Don't necessarily assume that we need to design for 101 kPa.

Look to all of the recent posts on cosmic rays to determine the
thickness of shielding required - 2 meters should do it. More, of
course, is better.

> Does anyone have any information about how many anti-oxidants they
pump
> into astronauts before they go up? or any info on the genetci
mutation in
> astronauts?

No, I'm sure you'll find it for us though :) Good hunting.

> >Boy oh boy, did you come to the right place.
>
> That's why I joined :]

Good.

> A good thing about not being exposed to all the old media is that
I can
> approach it with a fresh mind and question everything that doesn't
sound
> right (to me).

Good luck. I've found it very difficult to actually find a topic
that hasn't been analyzed to death over the last 30 years.

You may find the rebuttals here, but also be prepared to look
elsewhere.

> >where they left off, but recall that these guys were damn smart,
>
> I joined MENSA when I was 19yo with 99% I should be able to
logically
> counter any points I disagree with. If not, then I'm wrong, and I
learn
> something.

Again I'm reading between the lines, so I'll apologize in advance if
I'm presuming too much, but from looking at your website and your
posts here, you seem to be setting out to prove that Earth-scale
processes are necessary for Earth organisms to live off of the
Earth's surface. There are lots of folks who don't buy that argument.

Further, while I don't work with scientists in a lab, I do have
regular access to them (ewww!) and the ones I meet are the ones who
create advances and the occasional breakthrough. Never once have I
done business with a naysayer, nor do I see articles published in
journals detailing why things can't be done, mostly because I think
for every person who says heavier-than-air craft won't fly, or
propulsion in a vacuum is impossible, there is someone out there
trying to falsify their statements.

Your debates with the Mars Terraformers are interesting to observe
because you're arguing for the terraforming to be permanently
transformational, whereas they're looking at maintainability over a
vastly shorter period of time. It's an interesting intellectual
exercise to observe for terraforming a planet is a huge societal
undertaking that has little pertinence to the near future.

Habitats, OTOH, are more feasible, and if you're going to argue that
their ecosystems can't be autopoiesistically sustained over a
million years so they shouldn't be pursued that's like others saying
that aircraft wings can't be flapped like a birds because they would
be destroyed by the forces and the equipment necessary to flap them
would be too heavy to lift, therefore flight is impossible and we
shouldn't study it any further.

There are people right now who are studying the limitations you're
raising and looking for solutions rather than closing off the
argument. With your talent, I'd think you'd want to identify a
problematic area, and ecosystem design is surely one of them, and
seek to solve the many problem areas. That will get you a lot more
recognition than the infamy of being on the naysayer side and
EVENTUALLY having your statements falsified.

> >withstood much scrutiny over the last 30 years
>
> Theoretical work is hard to scrutinise. That's what makes it a
good job to
> get paid for :]

Too true - which is why we rely so much on the publications that
preceded us. There's not too much original reserch being discussed
in this forum, rather it is more educational for we each continually
bring into discussion new material that we've uncovered that is
pertinent to our interest in space settlement.

>
> >If you can look into the details I think you'll see where some of
us
> >picked up our mindsets.
>
> I'm sure my biology degree, pro-terraforming and pro-venus views
are
> sneaking through also :]

That they are :) but in light of what I've written above, are you
here to find converts to the concept of terraforming Venus or are
you looking for another space-related concept to adopt?

Your biology expertise would be a nice fit, but the terraforming
viewpoint isn't really too relevent to Habitat design.

> >Usually people arrive to this list already convinced
> >but still persist in their Mars visions.
>
> It's almost like they've turned it into a religion. They want so
> desperately to believe in space-exploration that they attach to
the first
> idea they encounter and stick to it, even if it's unrealistic.
It's almost
> fanatical.
>
> If only we could use their powers for good...

Hmmm, maybe they need to be deprogrammed from the cult of Mars. :)

> >I think our community will have acheived something if we can bring
> >you on board as an allie.
>
> If you can incorporate biodiversity and help me find a solution to
the
> cosmic radiation problem, then I'm there, future disagreements
permitting.

The cosmic radiation problem was solved at the beginning of the High
Frontier concept, otherwise it wouldn't have preceded from there.
That is the ultimate showstopper!

It just requires some digging for the skeptical mind.

As to biodiversity, that's an area ripe for someone with your skills
to actually make NEW contributions to the science. I think you've
identified many questions, probably because of your education, but I
fear I can't be of too much assistance. Perhaps others can
contribute their knowledge of biology to the discussion.

I would caution though, that the incorporation of biodiversity may
be accomplished, but not on the terms you seek, rather on terms that
are managable to achieving the goal of establishing Habitats.

Put yourself 100 years in the future - do you want to be arguing
then that Habitat biodiversity is impossible because of lack of
scale or sophistication, when your audience will be fully aware of
the millions of people living in orbit within the Habitats? You'll
be right that the ecosystems aren't autopoiesistic but your audience
will know that they are sustainable for human habitation and that's
darn good enough. Remember, planes fly even though their wings don't
flap.

I don't intend to come off in my above statement as sounding
sarcastic, nor condescending, but I do want to raise the issue of
arguing a point, which you are indeed correct about, for the sake of
being correct at the risk of being irrelevant. I'd rather read your
solutions to the risks to biodiversity (looking back through the
archives that's a topic that's not gotten the attention it's
deserved) in a Habitat rather than arguments that we need a planet
to achieve biodiversity and nothing short of a planet will do to
create a autopoiesistic system. The condition of autopoiesis isn't
necessary.

> >but I've grown tired of the Mars crowd
>
> It's only just recently that NASA opened up an Astrobiology centre
in the
> building next door, and started taking PhD students. The people
there are
> very pro-mars and very anti-everything else. They ignore anything
that
> disagrees with their current line of thought. It's very annoying.

I'm not too familiar with this point, but I'd venture a guess that
they're looking at issues of Mars missions, and not Mars
terraforming, so a Mars-Venus terraforming debate may be too off-
topic for them. Just a guess, though.

> >that developed that genetic varieties because of the very problem
>
> Those bananas have been engineered to counter the threat, not to
increase
> the diversity of the bananas gene pool.

I don't think that the bananas have been engineered. There are many
varieties of natural banana.

The "old" banana will die out and
> be replaced with the new GM banana clones. but what about a new
threat? it
> would mean creating a new GM variety. do we endlessly produce new
varieties
> of GM clones? The survival of the super-banana will then rely
heavily on
> our technological industries.

I believe that the "old" banana to which you refer is the Cavendish.
The Cavendish is what most of us know as banana, but it is by no
means the only variety out there. The situation that faces the
Cavendish is similar to the Potato blight and the Puccinia graminis
that creates wheat rust, etc. Reliance on monoculture is the
problem. Even in forestry. Fortunately there are many varieties of
bananas that can replace Cavendish but you're right that there will
be market turmoil. We're also fortunate that there are seed banks
established around the world to protect us from the scourge of
monoculture.

Of course, GM bananas will be an option, but not the only one.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:

> > >> A sustainable ecosystem, base on Terran life, cannot exist in
a
> space
> > >> settlement smaller than the surface area of a planet.
> > >
> > >With all due respect, there isn't a shred of evidence for this
> view.
> >
> > An understanding of population dynamics in biological systems
> would help to
> > appreciate my point. I'm proposing an Autopoiesis model from
space
> > colonisation, not an Allopoiesis model. Perhaps, therein lies
the
> confusion.
>
> That was very clear from the outset, and was easily deduced from
the
> lines of arguments you were advancing. My input into this point is
> that you're making autopoisis synonymous with sustainable.

To catch my own errors, I meant sustainable over an indeterminate
time. A Habitat's ecosystem may be autonomous and sustainable in
bursts of perhaps years, decades or centuries, who knows, before it
may need to be tweaked or have inputs introduced.

To
> sustain an ecosystem in a Habitat one could involve human
oversight,
> technology, and external resources.

Sorry, I went into automatic rebuttal mode and went too far. The
Habitat ecosystem could control its processes and be self-sustaining
and the human oversight might be a fail-safe mechanism. The
technology could be built into the ecosystem and still comply with
the definition you seek. The introduction of external resources
would clearly be out of bounds within your definition.

It's clear that the larger the Habitat the more complexity we can
introduce into the ecosystem.

BioSpere II made a good run of it considering its limitations. It
was too small in size, too varied in environment, too ambitious in
scope, and a first attempt. Clearly there is more to be learned but
the next experiments should be designed to isolate specific factors
and thoroughly understand them before we try to replicate the whole,
or create a process to mimic the whole.

If this logic doesn't appeal to you you should really lay out your
case of WHY an autopoiesistic system is NECESSARY. To state it is
and offer no support for the assertion is not convincing. To
categorically preclude the possibility of an ecosystem that is
smaller in scale than Earth's requires evidence to support that
position and a rationale why techology and innovation can't overcome
obstacles.

> While an autopoiesistic system is an admirable goal to aim for, it
> is by no means a necessary precursor to Habitat construction.

On further reflection, I'm not even sure that it is an admirable
goal. One of the potential benefits of orbital living might be
ecosystem design. This is impossible on Earth because the sheer
inertia of Earth's ecosystem and the scale of inputs required.

There is nothing inherently "good" about autopoiesis nor anything
inherently "bad" about allopoiesis.

TangoMan

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 03:09 AM, Michael wrote:

> How do you propose extracting and purifying the metals in a zero-G
> environment?

One interesting proposal is to heat the metals (or anything else) until
it's a gas, then heat them some more until you strip off a few
electrons. You can then use electric fields to guide them where you
want them; the difference in charge between elements allowing quite a
bit of control, at least in principle. Obviously, a little R&D may be
necessary to make this really work.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 03:09 AM, Michael wrote:

>> I do not believe population control will be an issue.
>
> It is an issue now and we have an entire planet to use, so it would
> certainly be an issue for a much smaller space settlement.
>

As mentioned before, if your colony fills up you build another one.
Ceres (the largest asteroid) has enough material for about 150-300
(depending on your shielding assumptions) times the surface of the
Earth in 1g living space. Should be enough for awhile, particularly
when you consider that most of the Earth is nearly uninhabited
(consider the oceans, deserts, mountains, antarctica, and most of
Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia).

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 03:09 AM, Michael wrote:

> That seems cruel.
> In zoos, when elephants "sway from side to side" it is because they are
> suffering from intense psychological distress caused by prolonged
> captivity. If we are going to take animals with us into space then we
> need
> to raise the issue of animal cruelty, by prolonged confinement.
>

Hard to say what brine shrimp want. If you want elephants on your
colony, it better be a small herd. Most colonies will probably be only
a few square miles, at least at first. I wouldn't recommend elephants
on the early space colonies, although perhaps after few centuries of
development we'll want some very large colonies with various Earth
ecosystems in them, including elephant habitat.

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 03:09 AM, Michael wrote:

> 1 Ceres (the largest asteroid) makes up more mass than all the other
> asteroids combined and it is not metallic. Neither is 2 pallas, the 3rd
> largest asteroid.
>

Most of the mass of colonies is shielding. It can be anything. The
Ceres example is simply illustriative. Of course, you can get a lot
more material from Earth's Moon.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 04:48 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> BioSpere II made a good run of it considering its limitations. It
> was too small in size, too varied in environment, too ambitious in
> scope, and a first attempt.

Actually, I suspect that the 'excessively' varied environment had
something to do with its success. Here's a somewhat simplified version
of the algorithm:

1. Put lots of different plants and animals you like in your habitat.
2. See what lives.
3. Use that.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Monday 29 September 2003 16:38, Al Globus wrote:
> On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 03:09 AM, Michael wrote:
> > How do you propose extracting and purifying the metals in a zero-G
> > environment?
>
> One interesting proposal is to heat the metals (or anything else) until
> it's a gas, then heat them some more until you strip off a few
> electrons. You can then use electric fields to guide them where you
> want them; the difference in charge between elements allowing quite a
> bit of control, at least in principle. Obviously, a little R&D may be
> necessary to make this really work.
(...)

Also, you wouldn't do the separation in zero g unless you want to. You would
have centrifuge gravity and then you would be able to use the *same*
separation process as on Earth. (With possible advantages, like eliminating
air contamination by running vacuum-exposed separations.)

Lucio Coelho

On Monday 29 September 2003 16:49, Al Globus wrote:
(...)
> Actually, I suspect that the 'excessively' varied environment had
> something to do with its success. Here's a somewhat simplified version
> of the algorithm:
>
> 1. Put lots of different plants and animals you like in your habitat.
> 2. See what lives.
> 3. Use that.
(...)

By the way, aren't there far less ambitious closed/semi-closed ecosystem
experiments with far better results? I remember seeing a Discovery
channel-type documentary where there was such an experiment with results good
enough to be used "in a trip to Mars" (what else? :-). They used something
like a refrigerator with edible plants growing on hydroponics shelves with
artificial light. Supposedly "refrigerator" could produce food and air in a
timescale compatible with Mars trips (a couple of years, I guess). Does
anyone knows what I'm talking about? I'm really not in the mood to do an
Internet search...

Of course such an experiment would receive *far* less publicity than Biosphere
2. Better to show a giant glass dome than an overlit refrigerator stuffed
with vegetables. But I liked this experiment because it looked more like my
vision of "hive" habitats, where *every* process that can be done using
machinery and energy (including water and air recycling) will be done that
way, and living stuff will be used just for food production (an activity with
no industrial/mechanical substitutes). Keep the number of variables in your
system small, and use controls as much deterministic as possible on those
variables to keep them stable. AFAIK, Biosphere II was the opposite of that
idea, something in the line of "we will let this overcomplex system fluctuate
wildly until (hopefully) it reaches some sort of equilibrium"....

Lucio Coelho

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 02:08 PM, Lucio de Souza Coelho

> By the way, aren't there far less ambitious closed/semi-closed
> ecosystem
> experiments with far better results? I remember seeing a Discovery
> channel-type documentary where there was such an experiment with
> results good
> enough to be used "in a trip to Mars" (what else? :-). They used
> something
> like a refrigerator with edible plants growing on hydroponics shelves
> with
> artificial light. Supposedly "refrigerator" could produce food and air
> in a
> timescale compatible with Mars trips (a couple of years, I guess). Does
> anyone knows what I'm talking about? I'm really not in the mood to do
> an
> Internet search...
>

Sounds like the NASA Ames Salad Machine. It was not a closed
ecological system, but rather something to make food, air, and clean
some water. It was a completely artificial plant growing chamber, but
not air tight. It was particularly good at growing lettuce, which is
why (I think) they called it the Salad Machine.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.