Diegetics

I could have put this in the Space science and technology thread, but the subject goes way beyond that. It carries on from .

Most writers about space colonisation assume we settle the Moon/planets, or else assume some sort of “warp drive” gets us beyond the solar system. That’s either not appealing or just wishful thinking. The only planets suitable for colonisation are Mars, and the Moon, both airless or close to it, and if there is water it is at desert levels. Spending a long time (let alone a lifetime) in low gravity does nasty things like osteoporosis. Most to the point, they are small places: they could not absorb a large number of colonists. As for faster than light, that may be restricted to a few Swiss neutrinos (but I doubt it even there).

The inspired conceptual breakthrough was made by in the 70s, and had quite a run for a time. Don’t try to live on planetary surfaces, but build space habitats . Not little space stations, but potentially huge structures able to house and support millions (and thus with a large area of farmland). They would need to rotate to provide artifical gravity. Various shapes were proposed, including cylinders and toruses. An artist’s impression of the interior of a large cylinder colony is shown below. Mirrors would focus the sun’s rays to provide light and control heat. .

Is it feasible, in the sense of construction, materials and life support? In terms of known modern science and possible materials, yes:

1. Raw materials need to be collected from space: both the gravity well of the earth and environmental issues prevent them being exported from Earth. Key raw materials are water (as such, or as hydrogen and oxygen), iron, aluminium, oxygen, silica, carbon, nitrogen. All of them are available in quantity, but in some cases as far away as the gas giants. This would require a fleet of unmanned cargo collectors, but that is just working capital; the energy required to move something in space is quite modest, with no gravity or air resistance, just the inertial mass of the vehicle itself.
2. You need a prodigious amount of energy to power such a colony but that should be no problem – the sun shines 24/7 at unclouded power out there, and nuclear waste is not an issue.
3. Cybernetic control systems are already well developed, let alone future improvements.
4. A strong magnetic field (an artificial Van Allen belt) plus shielding protects from cosmic rays and micrometeorites.

Because of the earth’s gravity well you need a less primitive and wasteful way of getting people off the earth than rockets, but there are other potential technologies such as the and.

Who wants to live in a rotating tin drum in the depths of space? It would strike many as bizarre, but the mileage that O’Neill’s idea created seems that many were inspired by it. After all, most of us live in highly artificial environments – not just the city, but even the countryside around me is man made. Why we should do so, and why we are no nearer setting up such colonies than forty years ago, another post as this one is already too long and it’s getting late.

There are so many things that go into what we need to survive. Can we survive outside of the Earth's Electro-Magnetic signature? Would a different set of Electro-Magnetic emissions be death for us? Do we require a very particular relationship between the electro-magnetism and the Sun's light?

There are all sorts of very specific balances that we need to sort out.

I think it will start with space tourism, then space factories.

Aferim always said the oceans and deserts and Antarctica were infinitely easier places to live. I think he was right.

Any presence in space will always be something limited to a tiny fraction of the population. Either representatives from the wealthiest societies (astronauts) or members of the international super-elite (space tourists). So anything to do with space has to have strictly scientific applications (telescopes, Mars probes taking samples) to benefit the "human race" as a whole. The bulk of us are struck with this planet for the foreseeable future.

If you want to get really bleeding-heart about it, the idea of some lucky few living in some cool space-station utopia while the Earth sinks into ever greater turmoil is immoral, and I think its been the subject of more than one dystopian novel.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ce-station

NASA is looking to 3D printers to build parts for the Space Station. Looks like it actually is following the path I outlined.

The earth has a natural radiation shield: the atmosphere.

How does one address this issue re a large scale space colony?

Edit: I see Torchwood mentioned this issue. However, the devil is in the details.

Cosmic rays are too energetic to be deflected by a man-made EM field:



Also, what about massive solar coronal ejections?

Radiation, not to mention all the other problems, could be managed. The question is if a significant majority of people willing to accept the risks involved. Managing is different from protecting. We will not be able to eliminate risk and we should expect a very high attrition rate along with a very high rate of failure. I don't see how you could go without first building the infrastructure with robots and creating a generation of kids for the specific purpose of sending them into space to a probable early and miserable death so we could learn to do it better and more efficiently the next go-around.

And by creating, I mean creating: from gene selection to keeping them isolated from the outside world so as not to compromise their purpose.

Furthermore, the advancements wouldn't have any economic benefit for a long time (no one is going to mine Mars for profit for a very long time, if ever) and it will take generations to take hold.

The only achievable goal I could foresee with a successful new colony on, say, Mars would be to breed new species.

What political group is going to want to do that?

What happens if CERN not only finds out about dark matter/ energy in 50 years, but furthermore finds a way to use it to achieve levels of power as far distanced from chemical rockets as chemical rockets are a rock thrown by a child?

What happens if we can make it to other stars, essentially instantly, in 75 years? What would happen? Assume, as you maybe ought to, that you are not just alive but capable?

I got dibs on Adelbarran.

I shouldn't antagonize you futurists.