The case for self sufficient colonies in space

[Nibb31]

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.

La Rinconada is far from a place where people are going to actually settle. Who would want to found a family and have kids there? It's a corporate mining town, not an actual settlement. I'm pretty sure most people go there to work and plan to get the hell out of the place as soon as they've struck gold.

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.

It has an immediate economic/survival appeal for the people who go there. As I've said before, humans migrate to improve comfort and safety for themselves and their children. A gold mining town has the immediate appeal of making people rich, which is a way of improving their comfort. However, it's not a place where people want to actually settle and raise families.

- - - Updated - - -

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

But why would someone want to build something so massive that would need massive resources to build and thrive? What would be the purpose? Why would people want to live there and not in an equivalent glass dome arkology on Earth? What problem does it solve that can't be solved by much easier and simpler methods?

There simply isn't a reason to build something like an O'Neill colony.

[WestAir]

You're right; there is no reason to expand into space. When we are being perfectly clear, honest, and reasonable, we have to conclude that space construction is the single most expensive, dangerous, and technologically straining endeavor society can undertake. By that measure, it would be exceptionally easier (no, orders of magnitude easier) to construct a city the size of New York at the bottom of the Indian Ocean than it would a small colony on Luna or Mars.

But we don't want to build another city on Earth, we want to do it amongst the stars - not because it's economically feasible or because it's beneficial, but because it's inciting. There's no concept more romantic than to conquer the heavens.

[DBowman]

But why would someone want to build something so massive that would need massive resources to build and thrive? What would be the purpose? Why would people want to live there and not in an equivalent glass dome arkology on Earth? What problem does it solve that can't be solved by much easier and simpler methods?

There simply isn't a reason to build something like an O'Neill colony.

A Stanford torus looks a lot nicer than a hole in the ground and isn't as grandiose as the cylinder style. We don't really want to get into engineering details though, this thread is not trying to address why we might, or if we would/should, or how we would - but only if it's in principle possible. These is not much point worrying about the why, if, or how of something that's impossible. As I understand you view you think it's impossible in principal - right?

Some reasons I can think of for off Earth colonies in general:

• 'plan B' the emergency back up for humanity
  
• If there was some compelling space industry that Earth would buy you might need to make living conditions reasonable to attract the people to 'make it happen'. O'Neill though it was energy.
  
• If you have established a big economy in space then it's going to be pretty cheap and easy to expand it
  
• The total exploitable material and thus the maximum supportable population is a factor of thousands higher off the Earth
  
• Reduce, and hopefully wind back human impact on the natural Earth without reducing or winding back population or 'standards of living'
  

[SargeRho]

An EML-5 space station might make a good sort of "trade hub" for lack of a better word. You're not all the way into Earth's gravity well, or out of Earth's gravity well, solar-electric cargo craft can more easily transport things from there to other planets, or from other planets/asteroids to there than to Earth, while more specialized spacecraft can transport things between a Lunar space elevator, and low earth orbit or possibly even an Earth Space Elevator. Within Cislunar/Cisterran space, you could use similar cargo craft, but using higher-energy propulsion systems, since you can beam power from the Moon, Earth and other space stations to those craft without having to worry about dispersion nearly as much as with interplanetary distances.

At the same time, a rotary station there would provide accommodation for anyone traveling from Earth to other places, or just simply as space hotels.

At the EML-1 or EML-2 points, such a station could be even more viable, since you then have the possibility of direct access to the lunar surface via space elevator, while still having the ease of access to Cisterran space.

The other advantage that colonies in space, rather than on planet have is that they have laughably weak gravity wells, so instead of having to spend several km/s of deltaV to land on them, you only need the d/v to rendezvous with them and dock.

Also if you want to produce things that are to be used in Space, produce them in space. This would probably be a major economic activity for such a station, or even the main activity. I don't know if it's truely the case, but I'd think building a geostationary satellite, say, an EML-5 station, and sending it down using electric propulsion is going to be cheaper than building it on Earth and sending it up using a Falcon 9.

It's also a plot point in several sci-fi games, shows and universes in general, where space industry is in space, and "ground industry" is on the ground, ie Elite's Coriolis stations, and EVE's giant space cities, the Babylon 5 station IIRC also had some industry.

Edited August 8, 2015 by SargeRho

[Nibb31]

• 'plan B' the emergency back up for humanity
  

There aren't any credible scenarios where humanity would be totally destroyed without at least a few million surviving. If we had the technology to build massive space colonies, we would also have the technology to mitigate the worse catastrophe scenarios. A few thousand stuck in an orbital colony isn't going to make any difference.

Besides, nothing lives forever and if we do go extinct, it's no big deal. It won't make a difference to anyone, since nobody would be around to be sad about it. We, as an insignificant species in an insignificant corner of an insignificant galaxy are bound to go extinct one day or another. We aren't anything special. Whether that happens in 200, 2000 or 2 million years is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the universe.

• If there was some compelling space industry that Earth would buy you might need to make living conditions reasonable to attract the people to 'make it happen'. O'Neill though it was energy.
  
• If you have established a big economy in space then it's going to be pretty cheap and easy to expand it
  

Lot's of if's. The whole argument hinges on the fact that there is not compelling space industry therefore no reason for space colonies. And even if we get to a stage where we are routinely mining space asteroids, there still wouldn't be a need for human presence, therefore we still wouldn't need space colonies.

• The total exploitable material and thus the maximum supportable population is a factor of thousands higher off the Earth
  

Reduce, and hopefully wind back human impact on the natural Earth without reducing or winding back population or 'standards of living'

Edited August 8, 2015 by Nibb31

[SargeRho]

For the sake of nitpicking, the image DBowman linked was a Bernal Sphere, not an O'Neill Cylinder.

[DBowman]

...it would be exceptionally easier (no, orders of magnitude easier) to construct a city the size of New York at the bottom of the Indian Ocean than it would a small colony on Luna or Mars.

I think I agree with you, I too feel that it should be cheaper, but it would be an interesting exercise to figure it out; a self sustaining colony at 400 atmospheres pressure in total darkness, near zero temperature without access to the Earth surface (just to make it an apples to apples comparison). Those hydro-thermal vent communities do it, but they kind of limited.

There aren't any credible scenarios where humanity would be totally destroyed without at least a few million surviving. If we had the technology to build massive space colonies, we would also have the technology to mitigate the worse catastrophe scenarios. A few thousand stuck in an orbital colony isn't going to make any difference.

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/10507342/India-Pakistan-nuclear-war-could-end-human-civilisation.html India-Pakistan-nuclear-war-could-end-human-civilisation
  
• some kind of 'new dark age' brought about by a regressive ideology that manages to take advantage of the 'capital' we've built up whilst simultaneously wrecking it
  
• the old Russia / USA MAD scenario, I mean the conscious destruction of humanity was recently a 'branch on the decision tree'
  
• Ebola 3.0, either natural or 12 Monkey style
  
• a big ol asteroid impact - it's happened before, regularly even. Not often, but pretty bad when it does.
  

We went through a 100,000 individual genetic bottleneck - so a small number can make all the difference, but I'd expect that in time the population off Earth would dwarf the population on Earth.

Besides, nothing lives forever and if we do go extinct, it's no big deal. It won't make a difference to anyone, since nobody would be around to be sad about it. We, as an insignificant species in an insignificant corner of an insignificant galaxy are bound to go extinct one day or another. We aren't anything special. Whether that happens in 200, 2000 or 2 million years is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the universe.

I agree, but as Dylan Thomas said: "do not go gentle into that good night. Rage rage against the dying of the light." Edited August 8, 2015 by DBowman

[Nibb31]

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/10507342/India-Pakistan-nuclear-war-could-end-human-civilisation.html India-Pakistan-nuclear-war-could-end-human-civilisation
  
• some kind of 'new dark age' brought about by a regressive ideology that manages to take advantage of the 'capital' we've built up whilst simultaneously wrecking it
  
• the old Russia / USA MAD scenario, I mean the conscious destruction of humanity was recently a 'branch on the decision tree'
  
• Ebola 3.0, either natural or 12 Monkey style
  
• a big ol asteroid impact - it's happened before, regularly even. Not often, but pretty bad when it does.
  

None of those events would kill 100% of the human species. 99% or 99.9% or even 99.99% maybe, but that would still leave a few million, which is a much larger bottleneck than we have been through before.

We went through a 100,000 individual genetic bottleneck - so a small number can make all the difference, but I'd expect that in time the population off Earth would dwarf the population on Earth.

There is no reason to believe there will ever be millions living in space colonies any time soon. The sheer amount of energy needed to propell millions of people from 0 to 26000km/h is beyond anything we can imagine. It's simply not going to happen.

Realistically, we can expect a few science outposts, with at best a few hundred people doing exploration off-world, but massive colonization is pure science fiction.

[SargeRho]

The problem isn't so much the amount of energy, but how (in)efficiently it's being used. There are means to use energy (and vehicles) more efficiently relative to the payload, that are currently being developed. Escape Dynamics' microwave-thermal rocket, SpaceX' reusable rocket and possibly the BFR, Skylon, part of which has already been tested, the precooler, and the SABRE engine for it has been deemed viable by both ESA and the US Air Force.

A Boeing 747 on a 10 hour flight uses about as much Kerosene as a Falcon 9 uses RP1 in a launch. Unlike a 747, the Falcon 9 has to carry all of the oxidizer, though, so a 747 gets over half of its energy from the ambient air. A microwave thermal rocket gets all of its energy from the ground station, and could get a mass fraction under 72%, in an SSTO no less.

Materials like Carbyne could potentially make a space elevator possible, since CNTs fall just barely short of being strong enough for a space elevator, and Carbyne is significantly stronger. Carbyne is unstable though, so more research is needed there.

Obviously using expendable launch vehicles isn't going to get millions of people into Space, since it'd be like trying to do today's air traffic with single-use planes.

Edited August 9, 2015 by SargeRho

[DBowman]

Ooo - 72% is huge!

There is no reason to think we'd have to lift billions of people; the off Earth population can grow while the Earth bound population 'naturally attrits'.

A new dark age might be an 'inescapable cultural event horizon' (Orwell's boot on a human face forever) and an asteroid strike / MAD exchange could actually kill everything on the planet. I don't think a scenario where millions survive and 'eventually recover' after maybe hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of suffering counts as a 'no back plan required' scenario.

[SargeRho]

It takes something like 200 MW to launch a 1 ton payload though, so a dedicated fusion reactor might be a good idea

[Nibb31]

This thread is drifting from "Science Labs" to "Science fiction nonsense" at warp speed.

[Jouni]

There is no reason to believe there will ever be millions living in space colonies any time soon. The sheer amount of energy needed to propell millions of people from 0 to 26000km/h is beyond anything we can imagine. It's simply not going to happen.

Large space colonies won't happen any time soon, but not for those reasons. The total economic output of the world corresponds to launching over a million Falcon 9s every year, while world energy consumption corresponds to tens of millions of launches a year.

[SargeRho]

Is it?

We are discussing a, at this point, mostly hypothetical set of scenarios that aren't going to happen for at least half a century. That does of course mean that technologies will be involved in such endeavors that don't exist yet, or are only in the early stages of development. Consider the advancements in the last 50 years.

[DBowman]

We seemed to have drifted a little from 'is it possible to make self sufficient space colonies'. I wan't really wanting to explore practical, probable, desirable, necessary, how big, how, how not etc - just is it in principal possible / in principal impossible.

I've not seen any real substantive show stoppers raised. There has been plenty of practicality and desirability doubts, and a few speculations about things that might in principal make it impossible. For example maybe low gravity and/or Coriolis effect might be embryological showstoppers. But no actual known show stoppers.

[SargeRho]

The original question has been answered already: Yes, it is, in principle possible to create self-sufficient space colonies. But I think it's worth, and I'd also argue on topic, to discuss how to make them possible and/or desirable.

[DBowman]

I agree it's a great question to explore.

I'm not sure everyone has accepted it's possible. On the other hand maybe that is why the thread has drifted into the why, how etc issues.

We could make a new thread(s) for why, how, minimum size required, etc?

[SargeRho]

I don't think it warrants a new thread, but it'd be more easy to keep track I suppose.

[Rune]

There is no reason to believe there will ever be millions living in space colonies any time soon. The sheer amount of energy needed to propell millions of people from 0 to 26000km/h is beyond anything we can imagine. It's simply not going to happen.

Realistically, we can expect a few science outposts, with at best a few hundred people doing exploration off-world, but massive colonization is pure science fiction.

"Any time soon" being the operative word. But if we maintain a sustained presence in space, it's also kind of inevitable.

Say we only ever need, at most, a "few hundred" people doing the things we envision now. Communications, pure science, extremely rich tourists, maybe a dash of resource mining to support those efforts, or in-orbit infrastructure maintenance. Probably control for far away telerobotics without lightspeed lag, and for sure defense will still be a big thing... a combination of many markets like today, not the point of this post anyhow. That is a few outposts the size of small villages for the "few hundred" you mention. And note, I concur, "a few hundred" are a likely upper number to directly service any markets we can see happening in this generation or the next, and that is probably being generous. After, say 25 generations, will they still be small villages? Nope, when the presence is evident to be turning into a sustained one they are sure to start growing in order to trade infrastructure costs to save on operating costs. After having people up there for long periods of time, it'll become cheaper to invest in more extensive support systems so you don't have to do as many crew rotations. It wouldn't make sense to put up a plant based CO2 recycling system of course... unless you very pretty much guaranteed to use it for fifty years, then recycle its components for another thing, or build on it, or sell to the next company that is going to cover that service, "because it's always been there". Another example, rotating habs at first to decrease muscle loss and increase mission durations. Then thick radiation shielding to mitigate radiation.

Then, at some point, growing food for them in orbit is cheaper than on the ground, and space workers only rarely go back to Earth except to retire. They just become more and more economic to retain in space, the more trained and experienced they are and the less they are rotated, just on account of the inevitable launch costs. Then someone decides to retire on some decommissioned hab, because they have been working on microgravity for so long this way his life expectancy is longer and/or his quality of living better, and he can afford the now-diminished costs of living up there retired with his savings. Soon the companies just build a dedicated retirement hab for old space workers, just to save their return tickets for downmass because by then the cost of keeping them up there are marginal extra maintenance time on the big life support chain that keeps the "small village" going with almost no input from Earth. Someone else has children up there, because we are all horny monkeys deep down. After five generations of that stuff happening, that kind of thing might very well be the norm, and a new human community is a de facto thing, still heavily dependent on Earth of course. On can imagine some of those guys will find ways to cover their living costs, probably being cheap labor for Earth-related services (since they don't need the ticket out of the gravity well, in the first place), or serving secondary markets that those markets create, or imagining other ways they can make money for Earthlings to keep on launching them stuff. They will sure have a great incentive to find out stuff they can produce cheaper than Earthlings. And they will be the guys to start seriously considering way to finance the first big, city-sized habitat. I'd wager one of their credit sources will be a lottery for one-way tickets, because there will always be an ample supply of space cadets. xD

Of course this is all very difficult to prove one way or the other. I can't predict the future after all! But we have been spacefaring for a very, very short amount of time as these things go. For economic reasons, even less so. And the space economy is growing by itself quite fine, even if it is still quite tiny. Given enough time, who knows how the future will look?

Antarctica has also been settled on a permanent basis for a short time, if you think about it. America (already settled by humans, incidentally) was "discoverd" in 1492 (probably a couple centuries earlier by vikings, in fact), and the conditions were more than ripe for colonization, yet the US only had its constitution by 1789 (and therefore, effective parity with its mother country), almost three centuries later, and only after many technological innovations were introduced. I'd give us 500 years before calling it impossible, is what I'm saying. And I'd try just for the potential rewards 1,000 years down the road.

Rune. Of course this is unscientific as heck! We are discussing future history! What did anybody expect?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Rune