Artificial Biospheres In Space

From: George Perkins [mailto:george@...]

> O'Neil rotating system concepts are getting a bit old.
>
> We now know that these platforms are not needed at all. No mirrors
> need be installed. Sunlight is not needed for human survival. It's
> not even needed for agriculture. These are old ideas.. false ideas.

You may feel free to experiment with living without sunlight for yourself.
Most of your fellow humans will choose not to. I can think of no situation
where large communities of people voluntarily choose to live in an
environment with no sunlight.

I don't think you can say that we "now know" that we don't need
sunlight-based agriculture to survive until you can point to 10,000-person
communities who are economically obtaining their diet from means other than
sunlight-based agriculture.

You can't declare that the way human civilization has sustained itself for
over 10,000 years is a false idea until you can point to a functional
alternative in routine, large-scale, and economically-viable use.

> In my opinion, the ideal space city would have multiple structures,
> some of which would rotate. Not all. Not everything rotating.

Take a look at any of the old O'Neill designs. There's almost invariable a
non-rotating section.

> Large structures should be segmented, or in cells, to reduce the
> likelihood of everyone perishing inside that structure in the event
> of a disaster.

You have to weigh the issues of quality of living against the risk of a
habitat-wide disaster. The odds of such a disaster are considered extremely
low by those who have done actual calculations rather than relying on
gut-feels (which may derive more from science fiction than anything). One
advantage of large volumes is that even given a rather large hole, blow-down
times are long, meaning a routine repair rather than a sudden emergency.
And as to the quality of life trade-off, what is the longest time that any
human being has voluntarily lived inside a small metal room?

> I would also like to see mobility. The capacity to move the most
> essential structures is important I think.

I can see engines being attached to any of the existing designs.

I personally think the original O'Neill designs still make plenty of sense
for all the same reasons now that they did in the 70's. Provided one's goal
is to create high-quality living space as opposed to simply sustaining life.

Regards,

Mike Combs