Transportation within a habitiat

> When there are billions of people in orbit it really wouldn't be
hard to
> foresee millions of cars.

OK. I can't argue with you on the possibility of foreseeing such an
outcome. But consider that we won't instantly go from our lifestyles
today here on earth, to a situation where there are billions of
people in orbit wanting the lifestyle we have today.

I believe it would be more likely that orbital societies will
evolve. They'll start small, with everything within walking
distance, and with no public transportation. As their size grows, I
think the first step will be some form of mass transit. At this
stage they'll have to import the equipment or develop domestic
manufacturing for it. I'll argue that these orbital societies will
evolve with a mindset unique to their situations and constraints.
Mag-lev transit will become the norm and be designed and expanded to
accommidate ever larger habitats. So by the time we do have billions
of people living in orbit, I just wonder how, all of a sudden, a
switch somewhere will be flipped, and freeways and cars and traffic
lights, etc will be introduced. That people's thinking and the way
they live their day to day lives, will be suddenly transform. To me
it would seem to be taking a step backward, to replicating the
societies of earth. What may make sense on earth, doesn't
necessarily have to make sense in orbit.

I wouldn't want to take a step backward and live like an Amishman,
riding around in a horse and buggy. Too much inconvenience and too
slow for my tastes. I suspect that all of the hassles of cars will
be looked upon in the same manner by those used to years of high
speed mag-lev transit, being only 20 minutes from any two points in
an Island 3, with no parking, operating or maintenance problems.

And for the social aspects that people attach to their cars, I'm
sure alternatives will be developed in the early years in orbit when
it would be completely impractical to design for cars. I'm sure
teenagers will have some alternative to cruising on a Saturday
night, or making out in their cars, and that a drive in the country
with the family will be replaced by some other activity which meets
the same emotional need. And that taking the kids to sports practice
can still be accomplished, or filling the car with groceries.

Life won't stop without cars.

And for the record, I have a car, I like my car, I like the freedom
it gives me, I like to go on the windy roads, and let my mind roam
and enjoy many aspects of car ownership. But, I hate traffic,
congestion, noise, unsightly urban sprawl, and the direct and hidden
expenses of maintaining an automobile society. If I had to live in a
cocoon in space that was twenty miles long, I'd want to maximize my
views of trees, and rivers, and not of overpasses and parking and
congestion.

I think that we're all encountering two types of responses to this
thread. One is an emotional, gut-level type and another is one where
we are trying to find pro-and-cons for our positions. I'm guilty of
both, and I think my bias shows me to be one who'd be happy to
eliminate all of the infrastructure required for personal auto
ownership in orbit. But I'm trying to see if that can happen. And if
we can't design a functional habitat without autos, then what will
be the expense of designing for autos. Will we find ourselves in a
situation where we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Where
the habitat can only grow so large before autos are absolutely
necessary but the expense of designing that habitat and the industry
for autos will make each vehicle cost a million dollars, so that
very few of us will be able to afford one. Will we be forever then
limited to a size of habitat that is functional without cars?
>
> > The cars or trucks that the habitat absolutely requires can be
> > brought up from earth. Cheaper to launch a hundred helicopters,
> > ambulances or firetrucks than to develop an entire industrial
supply
> > chain to support a few hundred vehicles.
>
> Given how many habitats we'll have and how much of our industry
will be in
> orbit I'd be willing to say that will only be the case in the
early stages.

But it's not a given. How many will we have? How will their
societies evolve? What types of industry? What economic factors will
be considered in deciding whether to import or develop domestic
capacity? Who will make that decision? Without exploring these
issues, we just get into dialogues of my fantasy versus your fantasy
and nobody gets any benefit from discussion. Nobody's thinking
evolves. I'm posing questions but admitting I don't have the
answers. But if you want me to buy into your vision, please convince
me out it. I just can't buy into billions of people living in orbit
without some explanation of how and why they got there.
>
> > On second thought, instead of Halon, perhaps a network of pipes
> > carrying an inert atmosphere under pressure. When a fire is
detected
> > a valve opens in the building and the inert atmosphere floods
in.
> > The literature I reviewed quite a while ago had the oxygen level
at
> > about 12% which was enough to sustain life but not enough to
allow
> > combustion. Human safety would still be an issue with a rapid,
big
> > fire quickly raising the CO level to a point where the
haemoglobin
> > in human blood would form carboxyhaemoglobin, thereby reducing
the
> > ability of the blood to carry oxygen.
>
> 12% is what partial pressure? Percentage composition is not a
good way to
> measure anything to do with the atmosphere. It's partial pressure
that
> matters.

I think that the partial pressure would have to be greater than that
experienced in the habitat. This would insure that the inert
atmosphere flooding into a fire situation would displace the
existing atmosphere. I don't have more specifics on the technology.
Do you think it is a valid concept? Could it be implementable? No
city on earth has a municipal fire-supression pipeline network, but
a habitat's requirements will be different, and fire will probably
more of a threat. Besides, we're designing from the ground up. Could
it work?
>
> > Hmmmm . . . maybe the habitat designers will have to face
the "Ford
> > Pinto" type of question. An extensive road network will get
> > emergenciy services to anypoint in the habitat, but at what cost
to
> > construct and maintain, and in lieu of what other uses for the
land
> > and financial/human capital. By eliminating doorside emergency
> > access, what would be the human cost? Not everybody is going to
die
> > if an ambulance can't come right up to their front door. But
some
> > might. Those few minutes could have been crucial.
>
> I would be willing to say the lives saved are well worth the
wasted space and
> cost of running the emergency services.

And what would those costs be? What if it amounts to costing you 25%
of your income? A whole infrastructure costing billions of dollars
to save, let's say, 5 lives a year. These are difficult questions.
I'm all for minimizing risks to human life, and I'm willing to
consider paying a cost for it, but I won't go as far as paying any
cost to marginally reduce further risks. To put it another way,
airline travel is very safe, but accidents do still happen. If a
technology could be implemented that would reduce crashes by 10% of
the already low rate, would you be willing to pay a 500% ticket
increase. I wouldn't. The safety of flying is good enough for me and
the thought of paying 5X more for a ticket to reduce my risk of
death from flying from 1 in 100,000,000 to one in 111,111,111 is
just not viable.
>
> > As for the big equipment that needs to be moved within a
habitat,
> > how about this as a solution: We know that when we first open
the
> > airlock all of the construction will not have been completed. No
> > matter the scale of the habitat, I think it unlikely that every
> > building and facility will have been completed for the maximum
> > target population when the initial population moves in. So we
design
> > utility roads on the surface where our imported trucks can move
the
> > material around the habitat. Then years later when the land area
has
> > been fully utilized and there is LESS need to move material, the
> > roads are grassed over and become treeless parks.
>
> I don't know if I like the idea of having trucks drive on grass.
Besides we
> are planning to put a solid surface on the road aren't we? That
could cause
> some problems since grass doesn't grow well on bitumen.

In rereading what I wrote, perhaps I didn't make my point well. What
I meant to convey is that the roads are in place in the beginning of
the habitat in order to facilitate ongoing interior construction.
But when the habitat has completed its internal construction, then
the roads are either left in place or destroyed, but the right of
way will continue to exist. I mean, how often will that road need to
be used to transport equipment to a forest fire? To transfer a large
sewer main to an area that has one ruptured, etc. I never proposed
grass highways be used on a daily basis. Only for heavy transport
emergency access. How often would that occur? A few times a year.
Once a month? I foresee the continued need to occasionally transport
large equipment throughout the habitat, but not on a frequent basis.

Also, why would we use bitumen? I'm not against it, but just because
it's done on earth, doesn't mean it has to be done that way at L5.
Could be cement, crushed rock, mooncrete, etc.
>
> > But the unobstructed right-of-way would still exist for the
occasional
> > emergency and the trucks would just travel on the grass. For
that matter, we
> > could leave them paved if the asthethics don't bother the
population, and
> road
> > maintenance is approved. Maybe they become bike paths, community
boulevards,
> > etc.
>
> Leaving them paved is a better idea. We should also try to keep
people off
> them since an emergency vehicle could come down at 100 km/h
anytime and we
> really don't want anyone run over.

I think we've crossed our wires. I'm prosposing a scenario where
all "standard size" transportation is taken care of via other means,
but the "oversize" transportation issue is addressed via central
roads, and right-of-ways. There would be no emergency vehicles
zipping by at 100 km/h.
>
> Where I am those riding bikes have to do it on the road anyway
unless under 12