It appears that Interstellar inadvertently vindicated

On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:36 PM, cdmitridavidson@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> Frankly, it seems to me that if we assume these settlements are only for highly educated and scientifically literate people, they will be a long, long, LONG time coming, if they ever do.
>
Living in a space settlement means living in a gigantic machine. Machines break down. All the time. All of them. Frequently. The settlers, or at least a good fraction of them, need to be able to fix the machines when they break down. Or die that is the alternative.

That doesnt mean the residents have to have Ph.Ds, but they do need to understand the machine they live in and be able to fix it skills that will have a ready market on Earth.

> What new community has ever been founded exclusively by an elite?
>
Every human community has been founded by people with the skills to survive there. For North America (by the Europeans) that meant farmers, hunters, a few craftsmen, and soldiers. Note that Jamestown had a 90% per year death rate. This was in large part because many of the settlers were younger sons of nobility out to make their fortune. These people, for the most part, had no useful skills (except hunting, sometimes) and a marked aversion to work hence the high fatality rate. Plymouth had about 50% die per year (they had more workers and few drones).

BTW: the death rate was kept secret to encourage indentured servants to come as almost all of them would die before serving their time. Once word got out, the supply of indentured servants dried up and we started using African slaves.

In space settlements I suspect the death rate will either be low or 100%. There will be plenty of ways for the clueless to kill everyone on board, so all, or very nearly all, of the population will be technical savvy or dead.

This means the first space settlements cant horrible little hovels far, far from humanity. They need to be nice, big places with good living conditions close to Earth so you can visit the family and your friends can visit their crazy spacer buddies. I suggest low earth equatorial orbit below about 550 km as the Earth and its magnetic field provide adequate radiation protection (paper available on request).

> Human settlement and migration on Earth has never been like that; in the early 20th century, too, the people who came to the U.S. (Which was a nicer place than a lot of Europe at the time) were farmers, small artisans, working people with low to medium skills who needed jobs and a way to make a living that they did not have at home. The wealthy and educated didn't leave home unless they were forced out by violence, and they did not come willingly because they too were leaving their families and everything they knew and loved behind. Today the scientifically trained immigrants we get in the U.S. come to study in our universities and get jobs-- a tiny settlement in space is not going to have a university or a lot of jobs.
>
> although most of the privileged among us have no reason to go anywhere because they have good lives where they are, I can see the need for LEADERS who have all those qualities, who might go into space to work and take charge of settlement because some one pays them to do it, but when I look around me in Los Angeles today, just like 100 years ago, half the city is immigrants, and most of the immigrants came because they didn't have enough opportunities where they lived. You are describing Silicon Valley in space-- but when people want to live in Silicon Valley they already have Silicon Valley. How can you top that? No settlement in space is going to flourish if it's only for educated scientists not enough there for them. -- there has to be a mix of people. That's what my training in the social sciences tells me. I may be wrong.
>
> Sent from Mailbox
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:47 AM, b bmaillists@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> I've often wondered if maritime transport might be a better template, specifically cargo ships. They don't have to be cutting edge, they can be robust. In certain ways they don't have to be the most efficient - except in the one that counts, the amount of cargo they can shift and how cheaply they can do so. They wouldn't have to be the fastest method either.
>
> Consider a vehicle with a body shape similar to the Kankoh-maru scaled up to take a payload around the size of the Sea Dragon. Like the Sea Dragon, launch it from the sea. To move it around when it isn't in space you can use a normal tug boat. Use a platform similar to an oil rig as it's support base and load point - tow it under the platform to load it's cargo using a set of carefully positioned cranes and specific sized cargo pods. The cargo can be brought out to the platform on cargo ships and off loaded from them using the same method. Initially use a mix of off shore wind turbines, Ocean thermal energy conversion and solar power to convert seawater to liquid hydrogen and oxygen, with the eventual plan to move to power provided by SBSP.
>
> In space off load the cargo at specific collection orbits for distribution by orbital tug.
>
> Don't carry passengers initially, but once the ships have proved themselves, put a self contained passenger module in place instead of cargo (Think of an f-111 cockpit and ejection system). Depending on where you look, the Sea Dragon payload was around 500 tonnes which would take a reasonable volume to contain. Even with space for support systems in the passenger module, you would have quite a lot of volume to carry a lot of people. They would probably also be able to carry a considerable amount of luggage as I doubt people and luggage would weigh as much as cargo for a given volume if you've given them room to move about.
>
> The problem would be, will there be enough utilization to make such a system worth it. If we were to embark on a mass construction effort to build SBSP and colonies, then yes. If we were to continue much as we are now, then no.
>
> B
>
> On 22/11/2014 02:20, 'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>>
>>
>> It could happen even in the absence of space elevators. Suppose a future society could mount a space transportation system at 1/10 the scale of current air transportation. That could support pretty massive immigration and trade.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Combs
>>
>>
>> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 8:40 AM
>> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] It appears that "Interstellar" inadvertently vindicated Gerald K. O'Neill's space settlement vision
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember reading in an academic journal that frontier areas in the past == Australia, California, even Argentina -- could sustain themselves for a long time simply on the business of housing, feeding, clothing, entertaining, etc the new arriving migrants, until they developed an export industry. A booming space settlement might only need one or two major exports -- such as space-based solar power, or products from asteroid mining.
>>
>>
>> I guess my question is whether transportation from Earth into space could ever become easy and routine enough for mass migration and trade. If the technology for a space elevator were developed, for example -- material strong and light enough for a tether -- how much tonnage could space elevators realistically transport back and forth? Would it take hundreds of years to build enough tethers? Would you only need one or two space elevators?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:12 AM, 'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>>
>>
>> It will require better economic opportunities. And cant happen in their absence.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Combs
>>
>

cdmitridavidson@...
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
Frankly, it seems to me that if we assume these settlements are only for highly educated and scientifically literate people, they will be a long, long, LONG time coming, if they ever do.
Living in a space settlement means living in a gigantic machine. Machines break down. All the time. All of them. Frequently. The settlers, or at least a good fraction of them, need to be able to fix the machines when they break down. Or die that is the alternative.
That doesnt mean the residents have to have Ph.Ds, but they do need to understand the machine they live in and be able to fix it skills that will have a ready market on Earth.
What new community has ever been founded exclusively by an elite?
Every human community has been founded by people with the skills to survive there. For North America (by the Europeans) that meant farmers, hunters, a few craftsmen, and soldiers. Note that Jamestown had a 90% per year death rate. This was in large part because many of the settlers were younger sons of nobility out to make their fortune. These people, for the most part, had no useful skills (except hunting, sometimes) and a marked aversion to work hence the high fatality rate. Plymouth had about 50% die per year (they had more workers and few drones).
BTW: the death rate was kept secret to encourage indentured servants to come as almost all of them would die before serving their time. Once word got out, the supply of indentured servants dried up and we started using African slaves.
In space settlements I suspect the death rate will either be low or 100%. There will be plenty of ways for the clueless to kill everyone on board, so all, or very nearly all, of the population will be technical savvy or dead.
This means the first space settlements cant horrible little hovels far, far from humanity. They need to be nice, big places with good living conditions close to Earth so you can visit the family and your friends can visit their crazy spacer buddies. I suggest low earth equatorial orbit below about 550 km as the Earth and its magnetic field provide adequate radiation protection (paper available on request).
Human settlement and migration on Earth has never been like that; in the early 20th century, too, the people who came to the U.S. (Which was a nicer place than a lot of Europe at the time) were farmers, small artisans, working people with low to medium skills who needed jobs and a way to make a living that they did not have at home. The wealthy and educated didn't leave home unless they were forced out by violence, and they did not come willingly because they too were leaving their families and everything they knew and loved behind. Today the scientifically trained immigrants we get in the U.S. come to study in our universities and get jobs-- a tiny settlement in space is not going to have a university or a lot of jobs.
although most of the privileged among us have no reason to go anywhere because they have good lives where they are, I can see the need for LEADERS who have all those qualities, who might go into space to work and take charge of settlement because some one pays them to do it, but when I look around me in Los Angeles today, just like 100 years ago, half the city is immigrants, and most of the immigrants came because they didn't have enough opportunities where they lived. You are describing Silicon Valley in space-- but when people want to live in Silicon Valley they already have Silicon Valley. How can you top that? No settlement in space is going to flourish if it's only for educated scientists not enough there for them. -- there has to be a mix of people. That's what my training in the social sciences tells me. I may be wrong.

Sent from

Mailbox
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:47 AM, b

bmaillists@...

[spacesettlers]

<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>

I've often wondered if maritime transport might be a better template, specifically cargo ships. They don't have to be cutting edge, they can be robust. In certain ways they don't have to be the most efficient - except in the one that counts, the amount of cargo they can shift and how cheaply they can do so. They wouldn't have to be the fastest method either.
Consider a vehicle with a body shape similar to the Kankoh-maru scaled up to take a payload around the size of the Sea Dragon. Like the Sea Dragon, launch it from the sea. To move it around when it isn't in space you can use a normal tug boat. Use a platform similar to an oil rig as it's support base and load point - tow it under the platform to load it's cargo using a set of carefully positioned cranes and specific sized cargo pods. The cargo can be brought out to the platform on cargo ships and off loaded from them using the same method. Initially use a mix of off shore wind turbines, Ocean thermal energy conversion and solar power to convert seawater to liquid hydrogen and oxygen, with the eventual plan to move to power provided by SBSP.

In space off load the cargo at specific collection orbits for distribution by orbital tug.

Don't carry passengers initially, but once the ships have proved themselves, put a self contained passenger module in place instead of cargo (Think of an f-111 cockpit and ejection system). Depending on where you look, the Sea Dragon payload was around 500 tonnes which would take a reasonable volume to contain. Even with space for support systems in the passenger module, you would have quite a lot of volume to carry a lot of people. They would probably also be able to carry a considerable amount of luggage as I doubt people and luggage would weigh as much as cargo for a given volume if you've given them room to move about.
The problem would be, will there be enough utilization to make such a system worth it. If we were to embark on a mass construction effort to build SBSP and colonies, then yes. If we were to continue much as we are now, then no.
B
On 22/11/2014 02:20, 'Combs, Mike'

mikecombs@...

[spacesettlers] wrote:

It could happen even in the absence of space elevators. Suppose a future society could mount a space transportation system at 1/10 the scale of current air transportation. That could support pretty massive immigration and trade.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:

spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com

[
mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
]

Sent:

Friday, November 21, 2014 8:40 AM
To:

spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject:

Re: [spacesettlers] It appears that "Interstellar" inadvertently vindicated Gerald K. O'Neill's space settlement vision

I remember reading in an academic journal that frontier areas in the past == Australia, California, even Argentina -- could sustain themselves for a long time simply on the business of housing, feeding, clothing, entertaining, etc the new arriving migrants, until they developed an export industry. A booming space settlement might only need one or two major exports -- such as space-based solar power, or products from asteroid mining.

I guess my question is whether transportation from Earth into space could

ever

become easy and routine enough for mass migration and trade. If the technology for a space elevator were developed, for example -- material strong and light enough for a tether -- how much tonnage could space elevators realistically transport back and forth? Would it take hundreds of years to build enough tethers? Would you only need one or two space elevators?

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:12 AM, 'Combs, Mike'

mikecombs@...

[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:

It will require better economic opportunities. And cant happen in their absence.
Regards,
Mike Combs