space habitats

I agree with Mike for the most part but would phrase it in a different
manner.
A utopia of anyone's conception would be the end of Man Kind. I have never
found any two people who's idea of utopia match.

Frankly I want the challenges. I want to have to work hard and even be
defeated occasionally. This is what makes man and a man. The challenge of
life as a whole and individually is the necessity of doing.

Nothing that we do off Earth will be remotely like what we experience on
Earth.

I have looked at smaller groups of people and how they would live and
expand. As small as 100 people. I have found very few examples on Earth that
could compare. They all had an escape valve or some out side source of
replenishment or they died. There have been some that we could learn from but
they had it even better than we would off Earth. Even a world identical to
Earth.

Mankind can live and thrive off Earth However I do not believe that any
"utopian" plan could survive for more than 5 generations.

In a message dated 6/10/2013 9:37:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mikecombs@... writes:

I advise anyone against visions of creating utopias in space. I think
settling space is worthwhile (even vital), but one should never promise
anything other than perhaps an increase in the standard of living (which after
all has grown by leaps and bounds historically with each new technical
advancement), and just maybe a chance to build your own kind of society with
somewhat less interference than might be the case on Earth. People living in
space will have all of the same faults as Earth people, and nothing will
ever be paradise. Pursuing utopia is pointless to my mind; it's enough to
just work toward improvements in living standard.

I don't know about 100 people, but if you care to make it 10,000, I would
say the NASA-Ames Summer Study came as close as anything to what you ask
for.

I have heard the opinion that the people living on Earth might adopt some
of the recycling technologies for ethical reasons which the orbital people
must develop for reasons of economic necessity. Of course, a
counter-argument there is that the people in orbit will have access to much greater
amounts of low-cost energy than the planet-bound. Some procedures economical
for them (like supercritical combustion chambers) might not be for
Earthlings.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mail
to:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 8:15 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] : Space habitats

What troubles me greatly is the glaring contradiction between our desire to
create an utopia in space, against our inability to create a similar utopia
on Planet Earth, where all conditions are more favourable than they are
likely to be in space.

Has any science fiction writer tried to visualize in detail how a colony of
say a hundred highly qualified people will live - plan their habitations,
engage in agriculture, school their children, manage waste, etc. - in
space.

Quite clearly the way we go about these activities on Planet Earth is not
entirely satisfactory. Even considering a basic issue like habitation, we
simply waste space on a colossal scale.

It is unlikely that earthlings who all have this fantasy of living like
kings will change in a hurry. Could space enthusiasts bring a different
perspective to every day living, which is more rewarding and ecologically
more sane?

Regards,
Selvaraj