Lawrence de Bivort
Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:13:21 -0700
Hi, all. What I am thinking of are free-floating self-contained micro-gravity permanent space colonies for quite small numbers of people -- ten-to hundreds of thousands of people. These colonies could be produced in space on a modular basis, and, in the end, inexpensively. Once people started being born there, they would not be going 'back' to earth or any other high-gravity environment for physiological reasons. These colonies would not need contact with other colonies, though they might wish to have such. New materials would be mined from small asteroids. Proximity to first the Sun and perhaps down the road to other stars would provide energy: the more energy you want, the closer you park to the sun. Why might one wish to live in such a colony? First, the environment. I do not see this in any way as a way of reducing earth (over)population. The numbers and cost of lifting people make that virtually impossible. But it is entirely conceivable that conditions on earth may be become sufficiently unpleasant that, like other emigrants here on earth, escape may be desirable, and, for a small portion of the population, quite feasible. It may be that the environment provided by a space colony, well designed and provisioned, will be superior to that available to most people on earth. Second, science. There will always be people who want to try new things and new environments, much like the early air pilots, SCUBA divers or hang-gliders. Third, aesthetics. One of the things that strike me about people who have gone into space is their euphoric aesthetic reaction to the experience. There may be an aesthetic to it that attracts a lot of people, much like the US southwest has attracted painters and poets, photographers and writers over the last hundred years. Fourth, business. It may be that in mining asteroids, or in micro-gravity manufacturing (e.g. electrophoresis), economic business opportunities emerge, serving earth or other space colonies. Fifth, politics. As societal systems grow more complex and powerful on earth, human beings are likely to experience a growing sense of constraints, invasion of privacy and loss of freedom and options. Forces of control (Big Brother) may grow in power, creating resistance, social discord and a sense that the social contract is broken. If this occurs it may be a rational response to create space colonies that can 'advertise' themselves based upon differing political designs, with different configurations of freedom, privacy, social accountability, authority and governance, investment priorities, social values, etc., so attracting people partial to their particular characteristics and desiring to participate in them. There are design issues that should be addressed: the most important to my mind is that of Requisite Variety (as per Ross Ashby's exploration of the issue in, IIRC, CYBERNETICS). Would such a colony have sufficient variety to keep itself growing intellectually, to say nothing of biological health? What is the minimum critical mass of individuals needed to keep an isolated or near-isolated colony going strong? Might a program of visits be necessary among several colonies to meet the requirements of Requisite Variety? Anyway, I hope this list shows that there could be a variety of legitimate reasons for free-floating space colonies. The issue, of course, is not whether EVERYONE would want to go, but whether a sufficient number of people, with sufficient assets or needed skills, could come together to order a colony be built. The initial group of inhabitants would likely be small, and reproduction would be the way the colony grew. Could an initial demand be sufficient to get the activity started? Books that throw some light on these themes include: Clarke, RAMA (four books in the sequence) Heinlein, THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON Cheers, Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Moon bases In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:10:40 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Robin sez: > >... > >> I think that there is little point in being in space just for it's own sake. The >> only real reason to go into space is to go to other planets. If one doesn't have >> the technology to do that, then there isn't much point. > >... > >I've run across this opinion many times in my life. When I was a tad >younger the opinion used to incense me to no end. [snip] I think we have different definitions of space. You mean everything outside the Earth. I mean literally the space between things. IMO there is plenty of reason to got out into your space - those reasons are called stars and planets. That's also where I would like to go (curiosity). What I meant was that if you really look at your own motivations, I think that's also the only reason you would want to go. Ask your self this question: "If space were totally devoid of anything else other than the Earth and the Sun, would I still want to go?" Well maybe some would, to get a better look at the Sun, but I doubt many would want to live there. IOW I see living in space itself (rather than on a planet or moon) more as a possible necessity than as something desirable...and I think that necessity will eventually be avoidable, though perhaps not in the near future. It depends on just how fast those black ops UFOs are. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.