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"

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.

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"

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.

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"

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 |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'