habitats (way too long)

> Very nice thread,
> impossible to resist, will have to de-lurk... :)

Glad you did. Welcome.

> I'll have to start by saying that I think a lot of what has been
said both
> in term of political and of technological issues has a basic flow
IMHO,
> which relates to the problems and the proposed solutions not being
on the
> same time-scale... I apologize for not being very good at
explaining what I
> mean from the beginning, but English is not my first language, and
these are
> rather complex matters...

I understood it from your first sentence. The problems I identified
are pertinent today, and the solutions will be from the far future.
But my thinking is, so what :) it's still fun to think about.

You could have fooled me about English not being your first language.

> What I'm trying to say is that by the time most of those issues
will arise
> as problems the solutions will be already available, and are
probably a bit
> too far away for us for anything more than throwing wild guessing
at them.

Yes, but it is fun, and hopefully thought-provoking. It gets me into
the nitty-gritty details of the future rather than just a vague
notion of some grand scheme. It's not like we're actually designing
the Habitat and its systems :)

> The first steps will be the establishment of small scientific
communities of
> the kind the ISS is setting an example of.

Perhaps, but these types of facilities become disparate
destinations, islands if you will, that don't form a road into
space. IOW, they don't help move us into orbit, they just help the
backers of the particular projects and their contractors.

Of these kind of limited
> operations we can expect a reasonable increase in relatively short
terms as
> it make economical sense to push the frontiers of new technologies
on a
> experimental scale.

The new technologies are very scarce I'm afraid.

Even for such a comparably small project we are all too
> aware of the amount of criticism and oppositions there is... but I
think we
> will keep doing that, if nothing else because we haven't got any
choice.

But we do have a choice, instead of Space being science driven,
perhaps the gov't funding can be used to drive infrastructure into
orbit, available for others to use. That's what gov't does best. Put
a rotating tether in LEO so that Lunar, NEO and Mars launches can be
had for less delta-v. Send out probes to NEOs and identify
resources, provide a "hostel" in orbit for private workers, provide
a repair base for servicing machines, provide food and air for
visitors, provide fuel, etc. Don't pick the winners and losers and
award or deny them funding for their space missions, simply support
in basic terms, those that manage to get into orbit on their own
resources.

The
> planet is full already, there is only one way to go, is only a
matter of
> time.
> So, as this kind of ventures will grow in number and size there
will
> eventually be the opportunity to begin establishing permanent
settlements,
> probably unmanned at the beginning, based on self replicating
systems
> installations on the moon.

Self-replicating systems are a huge undertaking. Just the
intelligence that must be imbued into the system and then the
identification and processing of resources is a huge task. Quite
frankly, it's often easier to simply have a person do something, or
to launch the equipment from Earth, rather than buy into a false
economy notion of trying to save by launching less massive payloads
so instead we should spend billions on developing self-replicating
systems.

I don't doubt that nano-technology will develop over the years, but
self-replicating systems are probably further away than the
establishment of communities in space.

We don't understand how to do the former, while the latter is
understood, but uneconomic. Both will require an economic
justification to go into space. Once a threshold is passed, then
space communities will be built (albeit on a small scale at first)
by the best available technology. I don't thnk that self-replicating
systems are a necessary pre-cursor, although they would be helpful
if they exist.

These would provide an economically sensible way
> to support and expand the growing but still mostly scientific
community in
> space. So far I think I'm still pretty in line with the general
thinking
> behind the original discussion...

Yes, you are. I'm just disagreeing with your optimistic premise of
the rapid development towards self-replicating systems. :)

> What I completely disagree with is that the next step would be to
suddenly
> establish large populated habitat with farmers ploughing their
little potato
> fields in orbit.

If you're reaching this conclusion from the posting I made, then
you're inferring something that I didn't advocate. There's no way I
can see that happening but I do have FAITH that at some undetermined
point in the future, there will be a community of thousands, perhaps
millions, in orbit.

I posted a question that was framed into this future scenario, not a
question that addressed the immediate next step.

>

> What is likely to happen IMHO is that "seed" facilities, again
unmanned,
> will be sent to all corners of the system, wherever there is the
potential
> of an economically sound enterprise.

And this sound enterprise would be what? Most of us on this list mix
our analysis with faith. The faith provides us with our starting
premise and we try to build on that, and I try to keep my questions
consistent with that unsupported premise. I see from your vision
that you too are building on a foundation of faith that an
economically sound enterprise can be developed with no human market
or human oversight.

> These seed operations will require minimal investment compared to
artificial
> habitats for humans,

I see a kind of chicken and egg scenario developing here. Yes,
Habitats do require enormous investment, but hopefully they won't
just be places where people have absolutely nothing to do, no way to
make a living, and require no resources to live and to produce goods
and services. I think that, or I should say, I believe, that they
will be centers for economic activity that cannot be replicated on
Earth.

The Habitats will form an economy. The seed operations will be a
part of which economy?

Think of it this way. Let's say the Arctic is like Space. You send a
unmanned probe their to exploit its resources. It takes the ice
around it, melts it with sunlight, forms water and does what with
it. There's nobody living there who needs it, so does the probe come
back to the big city and try to sell some water. It could, but water
is probably cheaper coming from the lake just down the road.

Now if you actually had people living where you sent the probe, they
could buy that water from you and you could make a profit. Those
people form the backbone of an economy; they're the ones who are
willing to buy, sell, produce and consume.

and within few decades could be up and running mining
> gases, water, metals, rare elements etc, pre-process them and ship
them back
> to near Earth orbit.

For what purpose? Who'll buy the material, when water, gases,
metals, and rare elements are less expensive on Earth.

Chicken and egg, again.

The dilemma I see is that without a market in orbit, each of the LEO
stations or autonomous platforms will be an island unto itself.

What's needed is a critical mass of economic activity and a
marketplace for the goods and services produced in LEO. The services
can probably be sold easily enough to Earth because most would
probably involve the transmission of information, which isn't too
costly. But the goods will always face strong competition from
substitute products that don't have to contend with the horrendous
expenses of shipping to and from orbit.

>
> As these kind of operations will grow in size and number, only
then, there
> will begin to be both the need and the convenience to expand the
human
> population on space stations. There will be a growing requirement
for people
> to work on the increasing number of installations required to
control,
> maintain and launch new seed plants. As these long term operations
expands
> it will become increasingly cheaper as well as profitable to
maintain large
> permanent inhabited installations.

But what are all these plants doing? If their goods are destined for
Earth, I can't see them being competitive. On the other hand, the
people living in orbit are going to need to drink water, eat food,
wash themselves with soap, shave, wear clothes, etc. Are all of
those goods going to come from Earth, or would they be more
economically produced in orbit?

> The self replicating systems as they grow will leave behind areas
that have
> already been exploited. These areas will be ideal as construction
sites,
> they will have already foundations and transport system
established and will
> be well connected to the supply and communication lines
established by the
> pre-existing commercial operations.

Are you saying that an abandoned Ford or Toyota site is an ideal
place to live because it already has a foundation laid down, has
rail lines and phone lines in place? I'd rather be near an existing
factory that will employ me and give me reason to develop a
household and community. Living at an abandoned site offers me no
reason to be there.

It seems logical to expect that in
> general human colonisation will tend to follow those existing
patterns
> rather than set up new settlements from scratch.

I disagree. Your presumption is that a community of thousands of
people serves no purpose other than as a place to live. I hold the
position that the people will live there because they are needed for
some function and they in turn will provide a market for other
products and services, which in turn will need other people to
provide such products and services, and so on.

Think of an army. It takes 20 people to support one front-line
soldier.

This is not to say that
> planetary or asteroids surface installations will be the only
ones, there is
> as much interest in deep space installations, like power plants
and 0-G
> manufacturing for instance, but again I would consider much more
likely that
> a large deep space human habitat will grow on a pre-existing core
of deep
> space industrial installations built by semi-automatic systems and
only a
> long while after such systems have been operating.

Again, what are these facilities doing, and to whom are they selling
their wares?

>
> To get back to the point, is my opinion that by the time there
will be the
> need and the economical advantage to set up large human habitats
there will
> have been many generations of people already living in space, and
all the
> practical issues will have been addressed in ways that we probably
can't
> even imagine today...

Yes, you're right, but then we'd have no fun thinking about what the
future could be like, nor debating with each other on the merits of
our visions :( We'd just leave it up to the future engineers who
would have to solve these problems.

>

> Bottom line, I think trying to guess at solutions for problems
that won't be
> around for at least another century with today's technology is a
bit
> pointless... :)

It's not like any of us are engaged in this dialogue because we're
faced with these issues in our everyday lives. This whole list is
premised on the concept of orbital development and colonies in
space. We're not a nitty-gritty engineering list that gets together
to solve immediate problems that we're facing at work. I think we
all humor each others questions by suspending our disbelief,
otherwise there'd be nothing to write about except the ISS, and
IMHO, there's not much going on there that warrants much
discussion :)

>
> I think it is very interesting however to discuss the possible
political
> evolution of a human colonised solar system...

Yes, I do too :)

it would seem likely that
> Earth will have an endless need for importing everything, as
increasingly
> cheaper space resources will start to become economically more
convenient
> than mining ever deeper for our poor old planet limited resources,

I think orbital resources will become cheaper as their quantity
increases, but I think they'll only become cheaper for orbital
buyers, and over time, they'll become cheaper than their Earth-
launched competitors.

I don't believe that orbital resources will be cheaper than their
Earth produced counterparts for the marketplaces on Earth. That is,
unless you're writing about a product that can only be produced in
the unique environment of space.

> especially with the kind of enormous population we already have to
> support...

But won't the self-replicating machines and lack of necessary human
oversight produce more efficient means of extracting terrestrial
resources?

>

> I guess I better stop it here, but let me just add I simply love
this list
> and all the great people on it who likes to discuss the history of
the
> future!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio

Yes, I like this list too, in fact, I think I like it better than
newsgroups because the level of responses is more thoughtful, the
discussion have more depth, and the topics are more focused. Though
I do wish the volume of postings would increase.

I'm glad you've decided to delurk and I hope we see more of you in
the future.

TangoMan