This list has been dormant for a while, so I'll do my part to get
discussion going again.
we're at the design phase now.
We're starting with a blank slate and can set new standards for
EVERYTHING that we manufacture. We all know that there are some
things on Earth that illogical but continue on due to inertia.
What would you change?
Would electricity be 120/220 AC?
Would you make drywall for construction?
Would you chose VHS over betamax :)?
Would you use growth hormones in cattle?
What TV standard to use? NTSC, SECAM, etc?
Would we need food preservatives if the food is grown no more than
20 miles away?
Would we need canned food?
Would we have restaurants? Who would work at them? Would we import
people from Earth so that they are waitresses and dishwashers?
Would we have daycare? Again who will look after children? Will we
have to re-engineer the work-life model? After all the competitive
forces present on Earth won't be present in orbit. There won't be
another Habitat for a while so we won't be drawn into the Japan vs.
US vs. Korea vs. Brazil vs. Germany etc model of productivity.
What will toothpaste be made of?
Who'll cut your hair?
Will buildings be built as rigorously as on Earth considering they
won't have Earthquakes or wind loads to contend with?
Would each home have a kitchen or will there be a neighborhood
kitchen?
Will the nuclear family continue or will it make sense to adopt
another mode of family life, perhaps communes?
Will we need sunglasses and hats?
Well, I hope that's enough to get us started. Please feel free to
insert your own observations.
TangoMan
Let's hope that the orbital communities will be democracies. Then all
the questions will be decided by the residents as they find it best at
the time. A large number of colonies will allow many experimental
social systems.
In fact, pure direct democracy through referendums may be ideal for
independent, limited size space colonies. This is a bit incidental to ssi,
but if anyone is interested, please see "A Constitution of Direct
Democracy" at www.Legacy-Books.com
This list has been dormant for a while, so I'll do my
part to get
discussion going again.
Let's assume that we're entering the age of orbital
habitats and
we're at the design phase now.
We're starting with a blank slate and can set new
standards for
EVERYTHING that we manufacture. We all know that there
are some
things on Earth that illogical but continue on due to
inertia.
What would you change?
Would electricity be 120/220 AC?
Would you make drywall for construction?
Would you chose VHS over betamax :)?
Would you use growth hormones in cattle?
What TV standard to use? NTSC, SECAM, etc?
Would we need food preservatives if the food is grown no
more than
20 miles away?
Would we need canned food?
Would we have restaurants? Who would work at them? Would
we import
people from Earth so that they are waitresses and
dishwashers?
Would we have daycare? Again who will look after
children? Will we
have to re-engineer the work-life model? After all the
competitive
forces present on Earth won't be present in orbit. There
won't be
another Habitat for a while so we won't be drawn into the
Japan vs.
US vs. Korea vs. Brazil vs. Germany etc model of
productivity.
What will toothpaste be made of?
Who'll cut your hair?
Will buildings be built as rigorously as on Earth
considering they
won't have Earthquakes or wind loads to contend with?
Would each home have a kitchen or will there be a
neighborhood
kitchen?
Will the nuclear family continue or will it make sense to
adopt
another mode of family life, perhaps communes?
Will we need sunglasses and hats?
Well, I hope that's enough to get us started. Please feel
free to
insert your own observations.
TangoMan
of Service. Michael N. Mautner
Senior Research Fellow
Soil, Plant and Ecological Sciences Division
Lincoln University
Lincoln, New Zealand
Telephone (64) (3) 325-2811 ext 8352
Fax (64) (3) 325-3844
E-mail mautnerm@...
Senior Fellow
Department of Chemistry
University of Canterbury
Christchurch 8001
New Zealand
E-mail m.mautner@...
--- In ssi_list@... "Mautner, Michael"
>
> Let's hope that the orbital communities will be democracies.
societies other than democracies.
If the first habitat is put up by China or Cuba :) then I think
it'll be only their citizens that are going to live there. If put up
by a consortium of companies, then it might be a hybird democracy
subservient to the economic interests of the sponsoring companies.
Even they would find it hard to find people willing to live in a
totalitarian society.
Then all
> the questions will be decided by the residents as they find it
best at
> the time. A large number of colonies will allow many experimental
> social systems.
> In fact, pure direct democracy through referendums may be ideal
for
> independent, limited size space colonies.
Assuming an intelligent and INFORMED and INVOLVED citizenry. I'm
willing to concede the intelligent aspect, but one criterion doesn't
lead to the second or third.
The problem with direct democracy is that people are often stupid!
They don't see the consequences of their actions. They most often
see only their desires. That's why you need informed and involved
citizens.
Look at the many propositions in the US. Limiting property taxes,
car license fess, etc. With property taxes limited, long time
residents of a community pay substantially less than new residents
even with the property values at the same level. Developers are hit
with many fees to pay for community amenities and this is just
passsed onto new home buyers. Most people only see the surface of a
problem, where in a republic, the elected leaders are dealing with
these issues on a full time basis, and hopefully can bring
experience and expertise to their decisions and not be corrupted. As
a system I prefer the latter if it could only be made to work
properly.
Actually, I'm starting to prefer Interactive Representation as a
model form of governance. It more honestly addresses the conflicting
interests of many different groups within society and makes the
decisionmakers more accountable to their constituents. It does away
with the fallacy of a local representative representing the diverse
interests of his constituents based only on geography.
See:
http://www.democracy2000.org/interactive.htm
TangoMan
Hi all
interesting and fruitful topic for discussion. IMHO, it sure beats those
dull conversations about the technical details of the latest low cost to
orbit proposal. (Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone by this comment)
The first thing that I'd change would be the requirement to use imperial
measurement units. People, just switch over to metric - it'll be easier for
everybody. ;-)
Cheers
Andrew Wynberg
Surely if the immigration is controlled by the Americans who construct the
orbital communities, they will be democracies?
As an Australian, I find American citizens discussing democracy to be a
rather interesting notion. Please do continue, but please don't imagine
that what you have (at least at the Federal level) could be confused with
the Australian version of democracy - also not perfect by any means, but
with enough differences to make your eyes open. ;-)
I disagree that the metric system would even be the
correct way to go. It has just as many flaws (if not
more) then the english system (there is a good web
page dedicated to this but I currently don't have the
time to track it down).
towards a computer society in space. A computer is a
binary machine. One of the problems with metric on
computers is that metric is base 10. However, english
units are a base 2 system (you define something as 1/2
inch, 3/8 inch, 1/64, etc). This makes doing english
unit operations not only quicker on a computer, but
more accurate.
Just food for thought,
Ryan
> This list has been dormant for a while, so I'll do my part to get
> discussion going again.
>
> Let's assume that we're entering the age of orbital habitats and
> we're at the design phase now.
>
> We're starting with a blank slate and can set new standards for
> EVERYTHING that we manufacture. We all know that there are some
> things on Earth that illogical but continue on due to inertia.
produce inefficient systems in the early iterations. Systems designed
to permit the users to adapt them as needed will always be superior to
inflexible ones in the long run.
Orbital habitats should have as little constraint on the inhabitants as
possible. The design should only encompass standards needed to ensure
people can interact with each other and that devices are compatible
throughout the station. This implies a single system of units (which
will inevitably be SI, barring a miracle), a uniform standard for
electrical power, a common language (most likely english or a
derivative of english, though Esperanto is a possibility), and a common
set of interfaces for all life support related equipment.
In the early stages of orbital habitat construction it's likely that
some will be constructed specifically as social experiments. I predict
that these will almost all be failures due to the desire of the
leadership to overdesign the society.
......Andrew
Dr. Andrew Case, PhD.
Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics,
University of Maryland, College Park
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
- David Hume
> A computer is a
>binary machine. One of the problems with metric on
>computers is that metric is base 10. However, english
>units are a base 2 system (you define something as 1/2
>inch, 3/8 inch, 1/64, etc). This makes doing english
>unit operations not only quicker on a computer, but
>more accurate.
>
floating-point arithmetic on a computer is anywhere near limiting the
accuracy of anybody's measurements. The most important point about
metric is the consistency in human display and interaction which limits
errors. For example, can you easily enter the number 23 11/16 in a
spreadsheet so it is recognized as a number? How easy is it to make a
mistake there? The unit prefixes help a great deal, where in "english"
units you have to have a different name for each different size scale
(and they went rather overboard on liquid measurement scales...) - What
is the "english" equivalent of a nanometer anyway? The other big thing
about metric is world-wide and domain-independent consistency - that's
never been there with "english" units where a pound of gold is lighter
than a pound of feathers, or a US gallon of gasoline heavier than a
British one (if I remember correctly). This is even more important for
space applications that tend to be international, and also tend to do
things in domains that don't exist on Earth - the confusion over the
pound as a measure of weight vs. mass is just one of the symptoms (it's
weight, not mass...)
You can use "english" units if you like - but please don't try to impose
them on anybody else, and make sure you really carefully double-check
all those calculations, ok?
Arthur
woah there arthur, didn't mean to get you so worked
up.
world does so why don't we" then that kind shifts
this. Just to put some of this in context, the EU
(english unit) system is just as accurate as the
metric system (well, ever since the metric system
fixed its flawed definition of a meter in 1987 that
is. I mean, how could those french not realize that
the earth was not a perfect sphere and therefor it
could not be defined as the distance through the earth
from their beloved paris? yes yes yes, this has now
been redifined to be the measure of light through a
vacuum...).
and want to talk consistency in metric, look at the
nautical mile, the metric system still uses it! They
also abandoned the whole base 10 when it came to time
keeping. still using the same ole base 6 system that
was first developed by the babylonians (which is also
defined in EU).
and lets also look at planar measurements, would you
rather use degrees (eu) or radians (metric)?
anyhow, the point here should not be a point to point
argument. But rather to get back to tango's initial
argument, should we be doing things the same way they
are done here or not? Maybe we should create yet a
new measuring system just so no country feels
slighted! :)
Ryan
> I disagree that the metric system would even be the
> correct way to go. It has just as many flaws (if not
> more) then the english system (there is a good web
> page dedicated to this but I currently don't have the
> time to track it down).
have never found something that I could conceivably call "a flaw". It seems
very practical, orthogonal and self-consistent. Could you define what you
call "flaw"?
Besides, since this thread is discussing democracy, I think that 95% of
Humanity is already using the metric system, so... :-)
> in a practical sense, we are moving more and more
> towards a computer society in space. A computer is a
> binary machine. One of the problems with metric on
> computers is that metric is base 10. However, english
> units are a base 2 system (you define something as 1/2
> inch, 3/8 inch, 1/64, etc). This makes doing english
> unit operations not only quicker on a computer, but
> more accurate.
First, your argument implies that you think that humans should adapt to
machines, and not that the machines should adapt to people. I prefer the last
option.
Second, you claim that the English system is binary, but that is true only at
the fraction level. In the non-fraction level you have an "arbitrary base"
system, with 12 inches forming a feet, three feet form a yard, and so on. In
fact, this would be worse for a computer, for it would have to switch to
different methods/objects according to the magnitude of the measurement in
question, while the metric system is decimal in all scales. (As I said, it is
very orthogonal.)
> Ryan
Lucio
>
>Let's hope that the orbital communities will be democracies. Then all
>the questions will be decided by the residents as they find it best at
>the time. A large number of colonies will allow many experimental
>social systems.
>In fact, pure direct democracy through referendums may be ideal for
>independent, limited size space colonies. This is a bit incidental to ssi,
>but if anyone is interested, please see "A Constitution of Direct
>Democracy" at www.Legacy-Books.com
>
>-Michael Mautner
>
>This list has been dormant for a while, so I'll do my
>part to get
>discussion going again.
>
>Let's assume that we're entering the age of orbital
>habitats and
>we're at the design phase now.
>
>We're starting with a blank slate and can set new
>standards for
>EVERYTHING that we manufacture. We all know that there
>are some
>things on Earth that illogical but continue on due to
>inertia.
>
>What would you change?
I would plead for a new kind of democracy.
Like Michael said:
>In fact, pure direct democracy through referendums may be ideal for
>independent, limited size space colonies. This is a bit incidental to ssi,
>but if anyone is interested, please see "A Constitution of Direct
>Democracy" at www.Legacy-Books.com
In fact, what we have now isnt real democracy at all.
In a democracy the people would decide on important things and not the
leaders alone.
What is it good for, when you vote for someone once in years to do all
the decisions for such a long time? Does he really do what he states
what he wants to do or does he just say so to get peoples votes?
The swiss system with its "Volksbegehren" comes closest to what I
would consider as a real democracy - but it is far away from this too.
So what I would propose is a right to initiate a decision for
everybody in a simple way.
Everybody could propose a change or even something completely new or
also a reversal of former decisons not only in the legislature
but also in the executive and jurisdiction.
If he/she would find enough (a given percentage of) elective people
who supports his initiative, a voting has to be done.
When the majority of votes is for the proposal it has to be
fulfilled, no matter what the leaders or so called experts or groups
of special interests have to say.
So a judges judgement could be reversed, the law could be changed and
also administrative tasks could be changed or initiated by this kind
of democracy.
I would have faith in the educated decisionmaking process of a habitat
population and think that they would get in many ways better results
than the functionaries.
Using News Groups or mailing lists and voting through computer would
fit best for this process.
For instance there would be Initiative News Groups were the
initiatiors call for support,
and Voting News Groups
with given periods of time for support gathering, discussion of
proposals and for voting.
Work groups and other smaller units like schools or companies could
get their decisions in a similar way.
The functionaries would just do what the group decides, not decide
what the group has to do.
The advantages are:
getting results in a defined time,
no need to make bad compromises,
a feeling of justness,
flexibility,
more ideas, creativity and self identification with the
unit since everybody has a chance
to have an effect on important decisions,
no lobbyists.
Frank
> Let's assume that we're entering the age of orbital habitats and
> we're at the design phase now.
[...]
> What would you change?
Construction materials will be determined as much by fashion and personal tastes as by utility, at least after the initial phase.
> Would you use growth hormones in cattle?
If they are safe, then yes. Space is little different from Earth on that issue.
> What TV standard to use? NTSC, SECAM, etc?
The highest resolution available.
> Would we need food preservatives if the food is grown no more than
> 20 miles away?
We would probably prefer to have some food preserved, as a buffer in case of crop failure. But for the daily diet, only experience can tell.
> Will buildings be built as rigorously as on Earth considering they
> won't have Earthquakes or wind loads to contend with?
They will probably have some wind loads to contend with, just not gales.
> Would each home have a kitchen or will there be a neighborhood
> kitchen?
This is something I have pondered a little.
Now imagine early space habitats, no more than work bases, similar to oil rigs. These would not have separate kitchens for each family, probably not even during the phase where families are first permitted instead of just workers..
The transition from "work base" to "community" would likely be a gradual one. Many of the inhabitants of the early communities would have experiences from the work bases. So I imagine a continuance. Remembering that electricity will probably be rather cheaper than on Earth - perhaps even gratis for private consumers - and that the weather will be always clement, I can imagine neighbourhood kitchens where the families can stand under the sunshade and cook together, a sort of park with tables where the families could dine. And also each home having its own kitchen, so that families could choose each day whether to cook and eat outside with the neighbours or cook and eat at home.
> Will the nuclear family continue or will it make sense to adopt
> another mode of family life, perhaps communes?
I should presume that this would be determined by the culture that the immigrants bring with them.
> Will we need sunglasses and hats?
Yes. Sunglasses and hats protect us not only from UV light, but from the glare of the bright sun. Also sunglasses are commonly used as a fashion item, or to provide some privacy.
However, would skirts and kilts be used? Hint: the weightless sections. :-)
Jon Lennart Beck.
>
> > This list has been dormant for a while, so I'll do my part to get
> > discussion going again.
> >
> > Let's assume that we're entering the age of orbital habitats and
> > we're at the design phase now.
> >
> > We're starting with a blank slate and can set new standards for
> > EVERYTHING that we manufacture. We all know that there are some
> > things on Earth that illogical but continue on due to inertia.
>
> History shows that attempts to design from the ground up tend to
> produce inefficient systems in the early iterations. Systems
designed
> to permit the users to adapt them as needed will always be
superior to
> inflexible ones in the long run.
Earth standards should we abandon?
Right now, if you wanted to make appliances that ran on 145v rather
than 120/240 you be out of luck because there'd be no place to pull
the power from.
It's unlikely that we'd be launching fridges and stoves into orbit
for our colonists.
There'd be no legacy standards in orbit. If we adopted 120/240 then
we'd have to have a better reason than "we need to so that exisitng
appliances can work" (there aren't any in orbit) or "because that's
what the rest of the world uses." (so what)
So, do you see any standards around you that just don't make sense
but are used because it's just too difficult to change a worldwide
user base?
I'd be interested in your observations.
TangoMan
> Right now, if you wanted to make appliances that ran on 145v rather
> than 120/240 you be out of luck because there'd be no place to pull
> the power from.
>
> It's unlikely that we'd be launching fridges and stoves into orbit
> for our colonists.
>
> There'd be no legacy standards in orbit. If we adopted 120/240 then
> we'd have to have a better reason than "we need to so that exisitng
> appliances can work" (there aren't any in orbit) or "because that's
> what the rest of the world uses." (so what)
voltages of 12 or 24 V; it may make sense as an Earth-based standard
for remote locations as well. Peter Eckart's "Lunar Base Handbook" has
a lot of discussion of details like this; well worth reading if
you're wondering about those things.
Arthur
Accuracy of units is a silly issue too - "english" units
are defined in terms of the metric ones, and have been
for decades - same holds true for convenience units
like "nautical miles" (I don't know why you think it's
a metric unit, any more than an "inch" or an "atmosphere" is).
anything more than parochial, you really should be using
metric.
> They
> also abandoned the whole base 10 when it came to time
> keeping. still using the same ole base 6 system that
> was first developed by the babylonians (which is also
> defined in EU).
Convenience units are fine for everyday stuff - but
read Vernor Vinge to see what our time measurements will
most likely be like in a few Gigaseconds.
> anyhow, the point here should not be a point to point
> argument. But rather to get back to tango's initial
> argument, should we be doing things the same way they
> are done here or not? Maybe we should create yet a
> new measuring system just so no country feels
> slighted! :)
I don't think anybody other than some US folks still living
in the last century would feel slighted by use of metric.
But I do agree we'll be looking at new units for time once
we've settled space at least beyond our solar system; maybe sooner.
Arthur
--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > Right now, if you wanted to make appliances that ran on 145v
rather
> > than 120/240 you be out of luck because there'd be no place to
pull
> > the power from.
> >
> > It's unlikely that we'd be launching fridges and stoves into
orbit
> > for our colonists.
> >
> > There'd be no legacy standards in orbit. If we adopted 120/240
then
> > we'd have to have a better reason than "we need to so that
exisitng
> > appliances can work" (there aren't any in orbit) or "because
that's
> > what the rest of the world uses." (so what)
>
> Actually, most proposals I've seen for space habitat power call
for DC
> voltages of 12 or 24 V; it may make sense as an Earth-based
standard
> for remote locations as well. Peter Eckart's "Lunar Base Handbook"
has
> a lot of discussion of details like this; well worth reading if
> you're wondering about those things.
>
> Arthur
prefer?
My understanding, limted as it may be, is that AC is more efficient
for tranmission over distances. In a habitat, even an Island 3, I
can't see distance being an issue, so DC may make sense.
But why 12 or 24 V? Why not 25 or 50V? I know that 12V is a standard
on Earth, but need it be in orbit?
TangoMan
>My understanding, limted as it may be, is that AC is more efficient
>for tranmission over distances.
>
Only because historically it is easier to use transformers to enable
step-up and step-down the voltage for AC. (High voltages give lower
resistive losses for a particular thickness of wire). I understand that
this is no longer the case, and DC-DC converters are highly efficient
and cost effective.
>
-Ian
"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> Thanks for the tip. Is the 12 or 24 V standard something that you
> prefer? [...]
>
> But why 12 or 24 V? Why not 25 or 50V? I know that 12V is a standard
> on Earth, but need it be in orbit?
if not large appliances. Anyway, "12 V" often means things are actually
14 volts or a bit more, depending on the circumstance, so the main
thing is really the rough scale we're talking about.
Solar panels generate about 1/2 volt DC per cell, so the structure
of any voltovoltaic arrays in use would determine input power to
the base distribution system. Though you'd expect all sorts of
batteries and other regulators in between to keep power levels
steady.
Arthur
--- In ssi_list@... Ian Woollard
>
> >My understanding, limted as it may be, is that AC is more
efficient
> >for tranmission over distances.
> >
> Only because historically it is easier to use transformers to
enable
> step-up and step-down the voltage for AC. (High voltages give
lower
> resistive losses for a particular thickness of wire). I understand
that
> this is no longer the case, and DC-DC converters are highly
efficient
> and cost effective.
>
I have an excellent pdf file on High Voltage DC Power Transmission
in my Space Studies Files. I could put it in the Files section if
anyone is interested.
TangoMan
One standard that will be hard to abandon is the usefulness / requirement to
have docking hatches that match with other spacecraft, to allow ease of
docking and transfer in an emergency.
Station will be one standard that we are stuck with, because each subsequent
US and Russian and European spacecraft will have to be able to dock with the
ISS. The Chinese would probably have a similar docking mechanism for
compatibility purposes too.
>Solar panels generate about 1/2 volt DC per cell, so the structure
>of any voltovoltaic arrays in use would determine input power to
>the base distribution system. Though you'd expect all sorts of
>batteries and other regulators in between to keep power levels
>steady.
>
> Arthur
>
You don't need to use PV arrays, you could use a mirror and a Stirling
engine as a power source.