The case for self sufficient colonies in space

[DBowman]

This thread is for exploring the question: Are self sufficient Colonies in Space possible? I'm in the 'yes of course' camp, but there are people with arguments that lead them to say 'no of course not'. Let's thrash it out here.

Here's my working definition of a self sufficient colony:

• it could survive and eventually thrive & grow even if Earth 'disappeared'
  
• it case obtain all it's required resources 'under it's own power'; i.e. it can use solar power or mine far flung asteroids and still be self sufficient
  

I guess that's it?

Why do I think 'yes of course':

• Earth is currently an example of a self sufficient colony - so they are clearly possible
  
• To make another one you'd need:
  
  1. sufficient quantity and variety of raw materials
     
  2. sufficient energy
     
  3. a benign enough environment to embed the colony in
     
  4. sufficient 'capital' - by this I mean $$, hardware, knowledge, & culture
     
  5. sufficient population to ensure a big enough market and genetic / cultural diversity
     

  [*]It seem hard to argue that the solar system fails 1, 2 or 3. It's got all the raw materials earth does, just distributed differently. It's bathed in solar energy. Re #3 a benign environment:

  • A few feet of dirt takes care of most radiation, just add more till you feel 'safe enough'
    
  • Something like a tire inner tube can provide a pressure environment
    
  • Energy implies thermal control
    
  • We haven't proven closed cycle life support but we know it's in principal possible, again Earth itself is the existence proof.
    

  [*]For #4 & #5 we have the Earth as an existence proof, we 'just' have to figure out:

  • How much smaller we could make it:
    
    • Whatever that current 'minimal population' to support a market is it's just going to get smaller as automation capability increases.
      
    • Re genetic diversity - humanity went through a genetic bottleneck of a few hundred thousand individuals.
      
    • Re cultural diversity - the colony gets a head start from having access to the last snapshot it had before Earth disappeared, and in any case populations used to be quite small.
      

    [*]How long it takes to build up the 'capital'. Well that's more of a practical question...

I'm sure there are flaws and/or omissions above, so pitch in...

[shynung]

While I do agree with your stance, outer space is quite far from 'benign'. Dangers of decompression reeks everywhere. Sure, you can use pressurized living spaces and utility modules, but I'm quite sure we'll lose a few careless people to the vacuum of the void anyway.

[AngelLestat]

Here there is a link:

http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt5.html

[Robotengineer]

While I do agree with your stance, outer space is quite far from 'benign'. Dangers of decompression reeks everywhere. Sure, you can use pressurized living spaces and utility modules, but I'm quite sure we'll lose a few careless people to the vacuum of the void anyway.

The dangers of outer space are extremely exaggerated. Compared to cars, guns and disease, the various risks of space travel pale in comparison.

The irreversibly of those outcomes is what really scares people IMO. Almost all bad outcomes lead to death. Hatch blew? Suffocate. Asteroid? Suffocate or get blown to bits. Solar storm? Have a severely increased risk of cancer, or die sooner from radiation poisoning.

[DBowman]

While I do agree with your stance, outer space is quite far from 'benign'. Dangers of decompression reeks everywhere. Sure, you can use pressurized living spaces and utility modules, but I'm quite sure we'll lose a few careless people to the vacuum of the void anyway.

Thats why I went for 'benign enough' - manageable without extreme measures. The bottom of the Mariana Trench is 1000 atmospheres of pressure. With respect to pressure only it takes a lot more material and engineering not to die down there. ( Looking it up seems 12.5 cm of steel will do it for a 2m sphere )

[0111narwhalz]

Re:5.1

I read somewhere or other that it takes 500 distinct genestocks (and extensive bookeeping) to ensure genetic diversity. And that's for each species of livestock and colonist. Plants are less exacting, I think.

[Nibb31]

Before claiming 'yes of course', show us a sustainable closed-loop system that can support advanced life here on Earth. Despite generations of people trying, nobody has succeeded yet. It might be possible, but it is far from easy or obvious.

You claim that Earth is a "self-sufficient colony". First, it isn't a colony. We didn't dump people on it and build it. We evolved from it and we will keep on evolving as the rest of our environment evolves (and inevitable extinction is part of that evolution, whether you like it or not).

Second, problems with runaway global warming, dwindling resources, and positive feedback loops indicates that it probably isn't. To demonstrate self-sufficiency, you need to maintain a balance over a long period. The larger the ecosystem, the longer you need to maintain that balance to prove that it is self-sufficient.

Finally, setting up a self-sufficient colony in a hostile environment, either on Earth or in space, requires a huge effort, and therefore motivation. Humans migrate and settle places for only two reasons:

- To improve their comfort and to ensure a better life for their children.

- To preserve their safety and to ensure a safer life for their children.

Colonizing space is going to be uncomfortable, unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous. There is nothing appealing in living in an underground vault and condemning your kids to drink recycled urine, hydroponic lettuce, and never feel a breeze of fresh air on their face (if you can even have any kids when exposed partial gravity and cosmic radiation). It is the total opposite of why humans have ever migrated. There is simply no reason for anyone to want to colonize the solar system at a large scale (beyond some remote research stations), because the most hospitable places in the solar system will never be more comfortable or safer than the most unhospitable places on Earth.

[Bill Phil]

Before claiming 'yes of course', show us a sustainable closed-loop system that can support advanced life here on Earth. Despite generations of people trying, nobody has succeeded yet. It might be possible, but it is far from easy or obvious.

You claim that Earth is a "self-sufficient colony". First, it isn't a colony. We didn't dump people on it and build it. We evolved from it and we will keep on evolving as the rest of our environment evolves (and inevitable extinction is part of that evolution, whether you like it or not).

Second, problems with runaway global warming, dwindling resources, and positive feedback loops indicates that it probably isn't. To demonstrate self-sufficiency, you need to maintain a balance over a long period. The larger the ecosystem, the longer you need to maintain that balance to prove that it is self-sufficient.

Finally, setting up a self-sufficient colony in a hostile environment, either on Earth or in space, requires a huge effort, and therefore motivation. Humans migrate and settle places for only two reasons:

- To improve their comfort and to ensure a better life for their children.

- To preserve their safety and to ensure a safer life for their children.

Colonizing space is going to be uncomfortable, unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous. There is nothing appealing in living in an underground vault and condemning your kids to drink recycled urine, hydroponic lettuce, and never feel a breeze of fresh air on their face (if you can even have any kids when exposed partial gravity and cosmic radiation). It is the total opposite of why humans have ever migrated. There is simply no reason for anyone to want to colonize the solar system at a large scale (beyond some remote research stations), because the most hospitable places in the solar system will never be more comfortable or safer than the most unhospitable places on Earth.

No one has succeeded yet. True. But that's "yet".

You seem to be assuming that the colony will be on a celestial body. There's no need for that. Bernal Spheres or Oneill Cylinders are perfectly viable. And if anything, they'll have very similar environments to a few locations on Earth.

[Rune]

Before claiming 'yes of course', show us a sustainable closed-loop system that can support advanced life here on Earth. Despite generations of people trying, nobody has succeeded yet. It might be possible, but it is far from easy or obvious.

You claim that Earth is a "self-sufficient colony". First, it isn't a colony. We didn't dump people on it and build it. We evolved from it and we will keep on evolving as the rest of our environment evolves (and inevitable extinction is part of that evolution, whether you like it or not).

Second, problems with runaway global warming, dwindling resources, and positive feedback loops indicates that it probably isn't. To demonstrate self-sufficiency, you need to maintain a balance over a long period. The larger the ecosystem, the longer you need to maintain that balance to prove that it is self-sufficient.

Finally, setting up a self-sufficient colony in a hostile environment, either on Earth or in space, requires a huge effort, and therefore motivation. Humans migrate and settle places for only two reasons:

- To improve their comfort and to ensure a better life for their children.

- To preserve their safety and to ensure a safer life for their children.

Colonizing space is going to be uncomfortable, unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous. There is nothing appealing in living in an underground vault and condemning your kids to drink recycled urine, hydroponic lettuce, and never feel a breeze of fresh air on their face (if you can even have any kids when exposed partial gravity and cosmic radiation). It is the total opposite of why humans have ever migrated. There is simply no reason for anyone to want to colonize the solar system at a large scale (beyond some remote research stations), because the most hospitable places in the solar system will never be more comfortable or safer than the most unhospitable places on Earth.

While I do agree that no artificial closed loop life support system has been proven over the long run, you will also have to concede that there have been precious little efforts devoted to proving that. I wouldn't call the question decided one way or the other.

Yes, it's a complex issue, and it will probably take an active hand guiding and correcting the ecology, with probably an minimum influx of materials required to keep it going because of the inevitable inefficiencies. But the same people that built it would be living inside, ready to take an active hand in the maintenance of their home.

I also disagree that Earth isn't proof that there can't be a closed-loop sustainable environment. Sure, conditions have changed over time, and we have evolved with them, but that is precisely the point. The habitability has been maintained for a really long time (nothing lasts forever, not even stars, so this is not a question of "forever"), even as the equilibriums came and went. And that is without any intelligent active influence trying to correct the bad trends like algae blooms, or invasive species, or human-caused global warming. And even then there are some promising examples, if we hadn't stopped using CFC's, Earth's ozone layer would be mostly gone by now, and we would be facing large environmental issues, and some tiny steps are being given in order to stop making a bigger mess of the global temperatures.

No one has succeeded yet. True. But that's "yet".

You seem to be assuming that the colony will be on a celestial body. There's no need for that. Bernal Spheres or Oneill Cylinders are perfectly viable. And if anything, they'll have very similar environments to a few locations on Earth.

Exactly. People tend to forget that the environment inside a big free-floating colony is probably more conductive to human life than Earth's... just because it was engineered to be so. No adverse weather, constant temperature, filtered and monitored atmosphere, no natural disasters... Hell, gravity and radiation dosage are design parameters, you can put them at the levels you like. Ditto for population density, if you are too many for the land inside the station, you build more land. There are calculations floating around out there showing hundreds of thousands of times the land area of Earth can be built using only main asteroid belt material. It would be like living in the most domesticated garden you can think off!

The really big hurdle is how you go from a 300mT station assembled from Earth components in 20mT launches bought with the lion's share of the world's space agencies budget, to a kilometers long steel behemoth built with off-world materials in a microgravity environment, that is itself dedicated to building copies of itself covering operation costs Kod knows how (what would those costs even be? difficult to say at this point). The scale of offworld industry required is just not of this century, and the path to growing one such industry is murky at best. At least economic growth is in our side, I once saw a calculation that showed building an interstellar Orion wouldn't more than 10% of the US budget by 2100, IIRC.

Rune. The magic of compound interest.

[SargeRho]

Building such stations will pretty much depend on asteroid mining. Perhaps you could build the structure in Space, and bring all of the electronics from Earth or wherever you're producing them at that point. You'd need a spacecraft that can mine materials off an asteroid, and process it into metal 3d printer-raw material, which is then printed into the structural elements.

A derivative of this perhaps: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/10/spiderfab-tethers-unlimited

Combined with this kind of spacecraft: http://cfile1.uf.tistory.com/original/1727B34D510CC97F234AC6

Edited August 7, 2015 by SargeRho

[Rune]

Building such stations will pretty much depend on asteroid mining. Perhaps you could build the structure in Space, and bring all of the electronics from Earth or wherever you're producing them at that point. You'd need a spacecraft that can mine materials off an asteroid, and process it into metal 3d printer-raw material, which is then printed into the structural elements.

A derivative of this perhaps: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/10/spiderfab-tethers-unlimited

Combined with this kind of spacecraft: http://cfile1.uf.tistory.com/original/1727B34D510CC97F234AC6

I'd say you need the kind of in-orbit industry that already sells hundreds of upper stages (or similarly complex items) each year, built and fueled in orbit. You will need a pre-existing capacity to catch and process thousands of tons of material, ranging from volatiles and water to dirt and metals. Space Solar Power on a big scale really was the ideal marriage for what O'Neill had in mind.

Rune. Who knows? Maybe one day you order a car and it is dropped from orbit because the manufacturing cost is less up there on account of environmental regulations.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Rune

[SargeRho]

If you have an ultra-heavy launch vehicle like the BFR at your disposal, which is supposed to be fully reusable, you can put 250 tons into LEO in one go. You don't have to build the colony near Earth at all. In-Situ it like a true Spaceman, and just convert a suitable asteroid into a space station.

If you need materials from other asteroids, use solar sailers or solar-electric transporters to carry it between there and your construction site. Compact enough in-space mining and refinement spacecraft are the key here.

Use inflatable bags to carry materials: http://img12.deviantart.net/3767/i/2015/103/f/2/hauling_ice_by_smpritchard-d8kjhem.png Dragged along by Solar-Electric spacecraft.

Edited August 7, 2015 by SargeRho

[PB666]

Before claiming 'yes of course', show us a sustainable closed-loop system that can support advanced life here on Earth. Despite generations of people trying, nobody has succeeded yet. It might be possible, but it is far from easy or obvious.

You claim that Earth is a "self-sufficient colony". First, it isn't a colony. We didn't dump people on it and build it. We evolved from it and we will keep on evolving as the rest of our environment evolves (and inevitable extinction is part of that evolution, whether you like it or not).

What this means is that it is possible with a large investment, or conversely stated, the risk of failure is inversely proportional to the amount of upfront work put into it to get it to succeed. The large the volume and mass of the original colony, the more likely it will be to succeed. Possible and easy are 2 different things, a colony of 500 on a martian moon would have a original investment that would require the support (as in a tax scheme) of the entire planet for a couple of generations to set up.

[Shpaget]

There are plenty of examples of "primitive" closed loop communities on Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

As for space...

The main asteroid belt has much, much more iron than a few billion humans could use in several million years. By that time, if we're still stuck in the belt, we don't deserve to get further, do we?

Since iron itself is a poor material, we need carbon to make steel. Plenty of that as well. Other alloying metals are plentiful as well.

Volatiles a bit of an issue. Water rich comets are a bit more scarce in the main belt (still plenty of them I suppose).

Any space station will be losing atmosphere and will need regular replenishing. Not just nitrogen and oxygen, but all the trace elements as well. Earthlings depend on those tiny traces of elements. For example, arsenic, while toxic, is essential for mammals.

Space colonies would need to make sure such elements are present in adequate quantities in food/water/air.

[PB666]

This thread is for exploring the question: Are self sufficient Colonies in Space possible? I'm in the 'yes of course' camp, but there are people with arguments that lead them to say 'no of course not'. Let's thrash it out here.

BTW, you really don't want to be procreating and bearing children in space, the unforeseeable consequences and foreseeable consequences would argue that any 'colony' would be a people who are in the middle of their childrearing years or older, have had their children on earth.

[SargeRho]

On a ring or cylinder space station with 1g inner wall acceleration and a decent metal hull, having children in space would be no issue at all. Embryonary experiments will have to be done on Mars (or in a centrifuge simulating .3g) to see how 1/3 earth gravity affects fetal development.

[Nibb31]

There are plenty of examples of "primitive" closed loop communities on Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

They are not closed loop. They breath air and drink water that are supplied by the planet's ecosystem. They live in an open loop that relies on a constant resupply from what you can consider a semi-infinite reserve of air and water. Many of them are (or traditionally were) nomadic, which pushes them to move on when they have exhausted the resources of a given location. Stick a glass dome over their heads and cut off their rivers and they will die.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Nibb31

[WestAir]

Query: Is it possible to make a modern submarine self sufficient? An aircraft carrier? A city?

If any of the above are "no", I imagine the answer to your own question is no. That said, I firmly believe a space station or lunar colony can be made self sufficient. It seems to me like there may be an initial threshold of resources and infrastructure that must first be obtained before this happens - analogous to the amount of energy required to get a self sufficient fusion reaction going.

[Nibb31]

No one has succeeded yet. True. But that's "yet".

True, which is why I was opposing the OP's attitude of "Yes, of course". When the correct approach should be "Maybe, but..."

It is certainly not a trivial problem to solve.

You seem to be assuming that the colony will be on a celestial body. There's no need for that. Bernal Spheres or Oneill Cylinders are perfectly viable. And if anything, they'll have very similar environments to a few locations on Earth.

Orbital colonies are science-fiction. First of all, you need some sort of resource to build the colonies, to extend them, and to produce any goods other that recycled food, air and water. You won't get the materials out of nowhere. That means that you need access to some sort of celestial body, whether it's a moon, a planet, or an asteroid. If you are getting your material from a celestial body, they why bother taking it all the way to orbit? And again, what is the point of building an O'Neill cylinder when you can build the same self-sustaining colony for much cheaper and much safer, on the ground? It serves absolutely no purpose.

[Shpaget]

They are not closed loop. They breath air and drink water that are supplied by the planet's ecosystem. They are open loop that relies on a constant resupply from what you can consider a semi-infinite reserve of air and water. Stick a glass dome over their heads and cut off their rivers and they will die.

According to that approach of determining what is closed loop, not even the entire Earth is closed, since it receives the necessary energy from the Sun.

However, OP has clearly stated that this hypothetical colony is not entirely closed, since it too receives, not only energy from the Sun, but also material from asteroids (space ecosystem).

Take a look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2267504/The-sealed-bottle-garden-thriving-40-years-fresh-air-water.html

He hasn't opened the bottle since 1972, so apart from the light (energy) getting into it, it's closed system, and on a very tiny scale to boot.

Scale that up, actively control the population and you can have an almost closed system. There will have to be replenishments since the atmosphere will leak and there will be other material losses, but I believe it can be done if done on a large scale.

My guess is that a few tens thousand people with plenty of robots, and better space engines could survive without Earth.

[Nibb31]

On a ring or cylinder space station with 1g inner wall acceleration and a decent metal hull, having children in space would be no issue at all.

You don't know that. The coriolis forces from the rotation might have effects as detrimental as the microgravity. Any cosmic radiation that gets through might also be detrimental.

Embryonary experiments will have to be done on Mars (or in a centrifuge simulating .3g) to see how 1/3 earth gravity affects fetal development.

Yes, learning about partial gravity, as well as cosmic radiation, dust mitigation, environmental toxicology, are all major prerequisite before we can even think about space colonies.

[Kibble]

There are so many question things, the only way to know how to do it is to try it. Try...what?

La Rinconada, Peru is one of the worst places on Earth. It's 5 km above sea level, sits at the foot of a glacier, temperature hangs around freezing all year, and there is no plumbing or sewage systems. But 50 000 people live there, encouraged by a rich gold mine. Legendary Hop David suggests government sponsoring of settlements in places like this, nearly-inhospitable corners of Earth, and helping them grow, seeing if they eventually thrive and approach self sufficiency, like any other city on the planet.

And once these experiments become successful you can try it in more once-threatening places - including outer space! Of course, doing this kind of thing (like alot of things people do, now that we are a civilization instead of just animals) has no immediate economic/survival benefit, and is likely of a scale a little beyond what modern society is willing to do. Maybe in a couple hundred years!

[Bill Phil]

True, which is why I was opposing the OP's attitude of "Yes, of course". When the correct approach should be "Maybe, but..."

It is certainly not a trivial problem to solve.

Orbital colonies are science-fiction. First of all, you need some sort of resource to build the colonies, to extend them, and to produce any goods other that recycled food, air and water. You won't get the materials out of nowhere. That means that you need access to some sort of celestial body, whether it's a moon, a planet, or an asteroid. If you are getting your material from a celestial body, they why bother taking it all the way to orbit? And again, what is the point of building an O'Neill cylinder when you can build the same self-sustaining colony for much cheaper and much safer, on the ground? It serves absolutely no purpose.

The thing about in space colonies is that they're mobile. Go to a small asteroid, grab what you need. If anything it's cheaper per colonist than one on a large celestial body.

[Karriz]

Once there's enough infrastructure in space to mine and process materials in large scale, I don't see any particular show-stopper why an Earth-independent colony couldn't work.

The same building blocks we have here do exist in space. They just happen to be in more convenient form on Earth.

[DBowman]

You claim that Earth is a "self-sufficient colony". First, it isn't a colony. We didn't dump people on it and build it. We evolved from it and we will keep on evolving as the rest of our environment evolves (and inevitable extinction is part of that evolution, whether you like it or not).

If I magic-ed another Earth into one of our Trojan Points would it count as a "self-sufficient colony in space" for you? If it wouldn't then you standards are maybe a little too high, if it would then this Earth can be an 'in principle' existence proof for "self sufficient colony in space" (albeit absurd as a practical proposal) and we just have to see how to 'scale it down' to something more reasonable. I think if it took a few hundred years to go to the point that 'the colony' could survive Earth disappearing then it would 'qualify'.

Colonizing space is going to be uncomfortable, unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous. There is nothing appealing in living in an underground vault and condemning your kids to drink recycled urine, hydroponic lettuce, and never feel a breeze of fresh air on their face (if you can even have any kids when exposed partial gravity and cosmic radiation). It is the total opposite of why humans have ever migrated. There is simply no reason for anyone to want to colonize the solar system at a large scale (beyond some remote research stations), because the most hospitable places in the solar system will never be more comfortable or safer than the most unhospitable places on Earth.

Rather than sitting in a hole drinking my own urine this is more the kind of thing I had in mind:

though to be fair I imagine it would be more like living in a mall + apartment complex for a long while.

http://www.space.com/22228-space-station-colony-concepts-explained-infographic.html

http://www.nss.org/settlement/physicstoday.htm

One of Earth comfortable hospitable spots.

People adaptable and there some unpleasant places to live on Earth itself.

BTW, you really don't want to be procreating and bearing children in space, the unforeseeable consequences and foreseeable consequences would argue that any 'colony' would be a people who are in the middle of their childrearing years or older, have had their children on earth.

I think it's fair enough to be concerned with the issue, and to propose and investigate potential problems - but as far as I'm aware we don't have a know show-stopper for a sufficiently shielded spinning colony.

First of all, you need some sort of resource to build the colonies... That means that you need access to some sort of celestial body, whether it's a moon, a planet, or an asteroid. If you are getting your material from a celestial body, they why bother taking it all the way to orbit?

I think the real question is 'once you clawed your way out of a gravity well why fall down another one? I expect that free floating colonies built from asteroidal materials will dominate. Luna is probably a good starter resource, I'm not sure what value the other large planets being to the party. Edited August 8, 2015 by DBowman