|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
Johnny1A wrote:
They aren't _currently_ cost effective. In fact, I agree that it's unlikely any O'Neills will ever be built, I suspect that whatever does finally get built will be to O'Neill's ideas much as real aircraft are to the theoretical models of the 18th and 19th centuries. O'Neill himself realized this, and said that nobody would be more surprised than himself if space settlements, once built, bore much resemblance to the artist's conceptions which were floating about at the time. "I'm for whatever works, and right now it's too early to say exactly what that is." So think of O'Neill's designs as proof-of-concept models, rather than as prophesies. When you say it's "unlikely any O'Neills will ever be built", if you only mean that Stanford Torus/Bernal Sphere/Island 1/2/3 will never be built, I don't know that I disagree. But I would tend to define an "O'Neill" as an orbital platform for the sustainment of human settlers, and by that definition, even things built from technology radically different from what we knew about in the 1970's would still qualify. -- Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely. Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is "somewhere else entirely." Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
I take your point, and would never argue that surviving in space is comparable
to surviving in the New World. But how much technology must we strip away before we're talking about "surviving on your own"? There are many places where people live where survival would hardly be possible without heated or air conditioned structures. There's hardly any place where a person could live naked. I consider things like O'Neill habitats to simply be a continuation of an ongoing trend that we use technology to create engineered environments which enable us to live in increasingly diverse habitats. Where would those places be, exactly? The Inuit live just fine without much in the way of heat; air conditioning is a very recent development, but there have been desert-dwelling cultures for a very long time. Were there places, such as Finland, that were very cold a lot of the time? Yes. But they were able to heat their homes with availible resources, or just bundle up. There is a huge difference between taking on a harsh environment on Earth - ie, an environment that might be hot or cold or have poor soil or something but one with water and air and animal life to eat - and building the entire environment from scratch, having to provide your own air, water, food, etc. Thing is, on Earth, food grows on trees, water falls out of the sky, and air is everywhere to be had for free. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
OK, I concede. I won't use that argument again. Still, I'd even consider
"bundling up" or building a simple hut to be a technological modification of the surrounding environment. But you don't want to put it in the same category as building an independent biosphere in space, and I must confess that a great distance separates the two. I still feel that humanity will someday be up to the challenge of building an entire environment from scratch. And I'll be the first to concede that it will only happen after an economic opportunity presents itself. -- Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely. Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is "somewhere else entirely." Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
Mike Combs wrote in message ...
OK, I concede. I won't use that argument again. Still, I'd even consider "bundling up" or building a simple hut to be a technological modification of the surrounding environment. But you don't want to put it in the same category as building an independent biosphere in space, and I must confess that a great distance separates the two. I still feel that humanity will someday be up to the challenge of building an entire environment from scratch. And I'll be the first to concede that it will only happen after an economic opportunity presents itself. Which is my point - in fact, my entire point in being here. If you want us to go into space, then the effort has to be focused on bird-in-the-hand short-term profitable projects that as yet no one has thought of. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
trakar wrote:
In many ways I concur with your sentiments. The largest arguement I run into, are those that consider constructing a generally self-sustaining tin-can environment on the surface of another planet somehow easy and desirable, but the construction of a similar environment in Earth orbit somehow fundementally much more difficult and completely abhorrent. Yes, it's a very strong (and prevalent) bias. I think part of the problem is the perception that a planet "meets you halfway". In terms of atmosphere, gravity, and several other criteria, Mars most certainly does not. To me, the greatest difficulties are not providing gravity, or redirecting sunlight. Spinning is easy, and mirrors are simple. The greatest difficulties a Engineering large, pressurized volumes. Establishing and maintaining a closed ecology. Establishing industrial infrastructure from scratch. I see all 3 of these things as being pretty much equally difficult in both the case of orbital space, and the surface of Mars. When we consider both that the orbital space could be considerably nearer to the Earth than Mars is, and that economic opportunities to serve existing markets might be somewhat better closer to the Earth than on another planet, that to me tips the scales in favor of the High Frontier. -- Regards, Mike Combs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely. Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is "somewhere else entirely." Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
James Oberg on feel-good space stations
In article ,
Mike Combs wrote: To me, the greatest difficulties are not providing gravity, or redirecting sunlight. Spinning is easy, and mirrors are simple. The greatest difficulties a Engineering large, pressurized volumes. Establishing and maintaining a closed ecology. Establishing industrial infrastructure from scratch. I see all 3 of these things as being pretty much equally difficult in both the case of orbital space, and the surface of Mars. When we consider both that the orbital space could be considerably nearer to the Earth than Mars is, and that economic opportunities to serve existing markets might be somewhat better closer to the Earth than on another planet, that to me tips the scales in favor of the High Frontier. True, though in the near term, a lunar base/colony may be even more attractive. It has the same advantage of proximity to Earth, but doesn't require spinning (which means, the colony can grow in a more organic, as-needed manner), and has a ready supply of certain important raw materials (oxygen, metals, maybe even hydrogen). The biggest drawback is the extended night, but a small nuclear reactor renders that a non-problem. Cheers, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |