Somehow I don't think we'll see nearly all the people moving into a
space colony all at once.

It is going to take time to build up a space colony, especially if we
want to use mainly space resources.

Heinlein's Farmer in the Sky dealt with terraforming a moon.

He makes the point that it will take time to convert powdered rock to
topsoil. We may see families graually expanding out areas of topsoil.

By the time that people move into small towns, the rest of the colony
may be covered with farms. Though the farms main job may be supplying
plenty of oxygen.

Plain ordinary organic garbage may be worth its weight in gold. I
remember reading of how in the early days of colonizing Australia, cow
manure didn't break down. Pats began coating the ground.

Turned out that the ships bringing the cattle had kept the decks
washed. Thus getting rid of the bacteria that broke down the cow
manure.

So the day was saved by bringing a load of cattle without cleaning
out the manure. Being a farm boy and having loaded many a manure
speader with a five tined manure pitchfork, I can imagine how that
ship smelled crossing the Equator with the temperature above 100
degrees.

(Incidentally, I found chicken manure the worst to load. The ammonia
concentration indoors was such that I had to step outside the coop
every 15 minutes. My eyes got to watering so bad, I couldn't see.)

Someday we may see a spaceship with a load of well-rotted manure
heading out to a space colony. Today big farms find manure disposal a
problem. They might supply plenty of organic material to space
colonies and even pay for the privilege.

At any rate, we will probably need garbage rich in all sorts of
bacteria. We probably don't know all the bacteria that is necessary,
so it would be best to use a shotgun approach.

Rick

There is a point in producing agriculture-friendly soil only if someone
is (for some reason) committed to terraform a planet.

However, if your goal is just to produce food to an off-Earth
civilization, then it will be way simpler and cheaper to just grow your
plants using hydroponics in habitats in space, instead of having the
painful and expensive work of exporting manure from Earth to another
planetary surface... By the way, your (techno-industrial) civilization
would be better in open space, with limitless energy and raw materials
resources, than trapped in yet another planetary surface...

Lucio Coelho

rick000brooks wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> There is a point in producing agriculture-friendly soil only if
someone
> is (for some reason) committed to terraform a planet.
>
Now who wants to live in the "Suburbs of Space?" :)

I'd assumed that we want many of our space colonies to have trees,
many plants, possibly lakes and fish. Poeople who live there may want
to have pets (think horses) that like the outdoors.

I have lived in a rural area most of my life which does prejudice me.

But think of rich people and their country estates. There are people
that will be more comfortable in a rural setting.

In case of trouble, it would be best to have a varied ecological
balance. Enough trees and plants to produce oxygen for all the people
and animals there.

Some people will want to garden. Others will want to raise animals
like horses or goats. Possibly milk cows.

I think you are being too inflexible here. There probably will be all
sorts of space colonies, even ones we can't imagine.

Picture what the Amish would want in one.

> However, if your goal is just to produce food to an off-Earth
> civilization, then it will be way simpler and cheaper to just grow
your
> plants using hydroponics in habitats in space, instead of having the
> painful and expensive work of exporting manure from Earth to another
> planetary surface... By the way, your (techno-industrial)
civilization
> would be better in open space, with limitless energy and raw
materials
> resources, than trapped in yet another planetary surface...
>
> Lucio Coelho
>

Our civilization will probably do both. Maybe even another option
that we've overlooked. Though I have no idea what that would be.

There are worse things than being "trapped" on a planetary surface
that is much harder to destroy than a space colony.

Rick

> rick000brooks wrote:
> > Somehow I don't think we'll see nearly all the people moving into
a
> > space colony all at once.
> >
> > It is going to take time to build up a space colony, especially if
we
> > want to use mainly space resources.
> >
> > Heinlein's Farmer in the Sky dealt with terraforming a moon.
> >
> > He makes the point that it will take time to convert powdered rock
to
> > topsoil. We may see families graually expanding out areas of
topsoil.
> >
> > By the time that people move into small towns, the rest of the
colony
> > may be covered with farms. Though the farms main job may be
supplying
> > plenty of oxygen.
> >
> > Plain ordinary organic garbage may be worth its weight in gold. I
> > remember reading of how in the early days of colonizing Australia,
cow
> > manure didn't break down. Pats began coating the ground.
> >
> > Turned out that the ships bringing the cattle had kept the decks
> > washed. Thus getting rid of the bacteria that broke down the cow
> > manure.
> >
> > So the day was saved by bringing a load of cattle without cleaning
> > out the manure. Being a farm boy and having loaded many a manure
> > speader with a five tined manure pitchfork, I can imagine how that
> > ship smelled crossing the Equator with the temperature above 100
> > degrees.
> >
> > (Incidentally, I found chicken manure the worst to load. The
ammonia
> > concentration indoors was such that I had to step outside the coop
> > every 15 minutes. My eyes got to watering so bad, I couldn't
see.)
> >
> > Someday we may see a spaceship with a load of well-rotted manure
> > heading out to a space colony. Today big farms find manure
disposal a
> > problem. They might supply plenty of organic material to space
> > colonies and even pay for the privilege.
> >
> > At any rate, we will probably need garbage rich in all sorts of
> > bacteria. We probably don't know all the bacteria that is
necessary,

rick000brooks wrote:
(...)
> I think you are being too inflexible here. There probably will be all
> sorts of space colonies, even ones we can't imagine.

I also believe in that; however, I think that the "hive colonies" that I
pictured earlier will be far more common than the "countryside colonies"
that you pictured above, and so I tend to automatically think in the former.

> Picture what the Amish would want in one.

As far as I understand the Amish, the use of industrial technology is a
"sin" for them. How would them live in an entire world made
artificially? Or perhaps they could try a space colony done in a
"handicraft" way - I am trying to imagine an Amish construction team
wearing leather space suits while building a wooden space habitat with
hammers and nails. But am not being very successful. :-)

(...)
> There are worse things than being "trapped" on a planetary surface
> that is much harder to destroy than a space colony.

Indeed, but once you have space colonies it will become much easier to
produce planet-wide devastation...

> Rick
(...)

Lucio

From: Lucio de Souza Coelho [mailto:lucio@...]

> As far as I understand the Amish, the use of industrial technology is a
> "sin" for them. How would them live in an entire world made
> artificially? Or perhaps they could try a space colony done in a
> "handicraft" way - I am trying to imagine an Amish construction team
> wearing leather space suits while building a wooden space habitat with
> hammers and nails. But am not being very successful. :-)

As far as the Amish are concerned, I don't think how the habitat got built
in the first place will be as relevant to them as how they choose to live in
it. Somebody else will build the habitat structure for them, and it will
then be up to them to manage the interior in as high-tech or low-tech a
manner as suits them.

I don't think Amish on the High Frontier are out of the question. The "life
support system" would in fact be agriculture which could be done high or
low-tech. O'Neill commented that the most high-tech part of a habitat would
be the motors which would circulate the air through the heat radiators. I
suppose one might need to add the timers controlling the mirrors.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it might well take rocket science to
build a habitat, but not necessarily to keep it running once built.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Lucio de Souza Coelho [mailto:lucio@v...]
>
> > As far as I understand the Amish, the use of industrial
technology is a
> > "sin" for them. How would them live in an entire world made
> > artificially? Or perhaps they could try a space colony done in a
> > "handicraft" way - I am trying to imagine an Amish construction
team
> > wearing leather space suits while building a wooden space habitat
with
> > hammers and nails. But am not being very successful. :-)
>
> As far as the Amish are concerned, I don't think how the habitat
got built
> in the first place will be as relevant to them as how they choose
to live in
> it. Somebody else will build the habitat structure for them, and
it will
> then be up to them to manage the interior in as high-tech or low-
tech a
> manner as suits them.
>
> I don't think Amish on the High Frontier are out of the question.
The "life
> support system" would in fact be agriculture which could be done
high or
> low-tech. O'Neill commented that the most high-tech part of a
habitat would
> be the motors which would circulate the air through the heat
radiators. I
> suppose one might need to add the timers controlling the mirrors.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it might well take rocket
science to
> build a habitat, but not necessarily to keep it running once built.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

I remember reading on How Stuff Works about the Amish. They reject
only the technology that conflicts with there religious values.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
> rick000brooks wrote:
> (...)
> > I think you are being too inflexible here. There probably will be
all
> > sorts of space colonies, even ones we can't imagine.
>
> I also believe in that; however, I think that the "hive colonies"
that I
> pictured earlier will be far more common than the "countryside
colonies"
> that you pictured above, and so I tend to automatically think in the
former.
>

The hive colonies will be more common at first. But I don't think
they will as time goes by.

It is possible that we are both wrong and space colonies won't work
for some reason. We won't know for sure until we try.

> > Picture what the Amish would want in one.
>
> As far as I understand the Amish, the use of industrial technology
is a
> "sin" for them. How would them live in an entire world made
> artificially? Or perhaps they could try a space colony done in a
> "handicraft" way - I am trying to imagine an Amish construction team
> wearing leather space suits while building a wooden space habitat
with
> hammers and nails. But am not being very successful. :-)
>
> (...)

Tsk. I assume they might have some built for them.

Now the question is why. I live near an Amish area, so I know
something about them. Not a lot, but the local newspapers run items.

First, there are different kinds of Amish. I heard of one fellow who
lamented that the group here was too conservative and he could no
longer use a tractor. He had married a local Amish gal as I remember.

The Amish here are having troubles with the government. Laws against
child labor conflict with their methods of child raising. These are
more evident in crafts such as furniture making.

Laws on schooling give their children much more education than they
think necessary.

Amish also tend too see the rest of us as too worldly and our culture
as corrupting their youth.

In a space colony, the Amish would be able to avoid these things and
keep their religion and culture.

> > There are worse things than being "trapped" on a planetary
surface
> > that is much harder to destroy than a space colony.
>
> Indeed, but once you have space colonies it will become much easier
to
> produce planet-wide devastation...
>
> > Rick
> (...)
>
> Lucio

Probably, but it will be still easier for space colonies to destroy
each other.

Rick

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "rick000brooks"
> I think you are being too inflexible here. There probably will be
all
> sorts of space colonies, even ones we can't imagine.
>
> Picture what the Amish would want in one.

GREAT point; thanks for making it :)

spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "rick000brooks"
> wrote:
> > I think you are being too inflexible here. There probably will be
> all
> > sorts of space colonies, even ones we can't imagine.
> >
> > Picture what the Amish would want in one.
>
> GREAT point; thanks for making it :)
>
> spike

Thanks.

I think the same holds true for space colonies vs, Mars colonies. We'll probably do both.

Somebody (My apologies. Neither my computer or myself are in good health) wote that Mars colonies in canyons would be flooded
during terraforming. This may be true for some. But here on earth, Death Valley and a good bit of the North African Desert are below
sea level. The entire Mediteranian Sea was at one time. If good engineers had been around then, it might still be dry.

Most of the Southern Hemisphere of Mars is higher than the Northen Hemisphere. Any canyons in the south might have portions
above the final sea level Craters could be roofed over.

There are probably many ways to colonize Mars. Including many I haven't thought of.

Rick.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "rick000brooks"
> Somehow I don't think we'll see nearly all the people moving into a
> space colony all at once.
>
> It is going to take time to build up a space colony, especially if
we
> want to use mainly space resources.

A question from a new guy here(who has realised it's about time to
make a proper debut:);

Is it necessary to fill space habitats to capacity? I am thinking
more of Island 3 designs, which are meant to accommodate a population
of millions(10 million is the most I've heard), would it be practical
to 'get by' with a population of only 1 million? As in, would 1
million(or less) be enough to justify the cost and effort of building
a habitat that size?

I realise that the thinking may be more along the lines of, 'fill it
up and then build another one', but would it be comfortable doing it
that way, in terms of stress on air recycling systems, sewage
management systems, and such?

> From: danj_caslaw [mailto:danj_caslaw@...]

> Is it necessary to fill space habitats to capacity?

> I realise that the thinking may be more along the lines of, 'fill it
> up and then build another one', but would it be comfortable doing it
> that way, in terms of stress on air recycling systems, sewage
> management systems, and such?

The problem is that the humans are the air-recycling system for the plants. If you wanted a wild-life park (with lots of animals) or a concrete city (with few plants) then yes you could, but the ammounts of raw bio-mass is governed by strict equations, and cannot be fiddled with too much.

ANTIcarrot.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "danj_caslaw"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "rick000brooks"

> wrote:
> > Somehow I don't think we'll see nearly all the people moving
into a
> > space colony all at once.
> >
> > It is going to take time to build up a space colony, especially
if
> we
> > want to use mainly space resources.
>
> A question from a new guy here(who has realised it's about time to
> make a proper debut:);

Welcome

> Is it necessary to fill space habitats to capacity? I am thinking
> more of Island 3 designs, which are meant to accommodate a
population
> of millions(10 million is the most I've heard), would it be
practical
> to 'get by' with a population of only 1 million?

I tend to think that the Habitats will grow organically. In the case
of one that is the size of Island 3, how likely is it that a city
will be built in its entirety before a single person moves through
the airlock?

The Habitat may have a design limit of 10,000,000 but the population
increase, the air exchange mechanisms, the flora, the fauna, the
sewage treatment, etc will all probably grow in lockstep. About the
only things that'll have to be established in their entirety from
the outset will be the atmosphere, the "land", the conduits that are
required for later infrastructure.

As in, would 1
> million(or less) be enough to justify the cost and effort of
building
> a habitat that size?

It all comes down to economics IMO. If a million people can afford
to pay for the place then why not?

>
> I realise that the thinking may be more along the lines of, 'fill
it
> up and then build another one', but would it be comfortable doing
it
> that way, in terms of stress on air recycling systems, sewage
> management systems, and such?

I tend to think that there will be design limits and things will
function within parameters below the limits. If you're the
designers, why would you set an upper population limit that is going
to exceed or stress the life support system.

TangoMan