Vulnerability of Space Settlements to Attacks

rmenich@... wrote:

> Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote,
> I think that collectively we need to move away from thinking about
> "colonies", and instead start thinking about "worker housing" or
> "construction shacks with worker dormitories". We need to think mentally
> of the crew quarters on an oil rig as a model rather than the paintings of
> the interior of Island One that we see in O'Neill's books --- the oil rig
> analogy is far more likely to happen in the near term than the Island One
> habitat. I'm not saying that Island One won't happen, but we are just
> nowhere near that right now.

I don't agree with this sentiment. I think the analogy between
oil rigs and space settlement/habitats is a very poor one.

I think a much better analogy is to be made between space
settlement and buildings. We already have large buildings on
earth and there will be large buildings in space; but the vast
majority will be small I think.

When we get to asteroids, and they are much closer than they
appear to LEO, radiation shielding becomes essentially
costless, pressure vessels will cost, but not so much, energy
is 'free'; but then it doesn't cost so very much on earth when
you think about it.

Large constructs are always vulnerable one way or another- I'm
not talking about attack, but fire, accident, explosion,
disease and on- all these things are going to endanger large
single structures more than small; having all your eggs in a
single basket gives issues.

I prefer the smaller habitats sizes- their architecture is
every bit as interesting. How SMALL can you get and still be
nice to live?

> We MUST find a way to incrementally grow settlements in space. No entity
> is going to take the financial risk of building a 10,000 person habitat
> right after the starting gun has fired. We've got to find ways to
> envision 10 people in space growning to 100 people in space growing to 500
> people in space growing to 1000 people in space growing to ... ---- if we
> can't envision the interim steps, then the 10,000-person habitat will
> never materialize.

Your/we're missing a concept here: 'Space houses'

Raw materials being cheap, I think a 'space house' isn't going
to be out of most people's reach in space. The bottom line is
that people won't have to live or work in these huge Island
three's (but may choose to); but they are going to prefer much
smaller places by and large.

What systems do you need:

a) power (solar panels or solar generator)
b) temperature control (air conditioning)
c) light (windows)
d) gravity (rotation/tethers)
e) air recycling (CO2 -> O2 + C and trace element control,
dehumidifier)
f) comms
g) transport
h) garden
i) sewage (i.e. a cess tank)
j) water system
k) attitude control (keep the panels pointing at the sun-
basically trivial.)
l) kitchen

(Don't make the mistake of assuming that a house is a closed
system- it isn't.)

Think small- a family house is all we're talking about.
Transport is cheap. Energy is cheap. Mass is cheap. You get an
economy going- people do a job, get money, pay to keep their
habitat going. It's the same as a city, except in space. Other
people live near you; you can go see them in your space buggy,
shopping, or it is delivered.

You'd probably have a similar length list from ANY house on
earth, but the details are going to be different.

> Ron
> ******

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill