Civilization moving to the Asteroid Belt.

[Drunkrobot]

Compared to the massive body of literature on human colonization of the Moon, Mars and the other planets, not to mention extra-solar "garden" worlds, there seems to be very little thought on society existing entirely in space, feeding itself with bodies of negligible gravity, like asteroids and comets. My question is: could, and would, the entire human race, at some point in the next few centuries, move the majority of it's people and holdings into space (or rather, move the people, and replace the infrastructure on Earth with what resources we could harvest) and survive, even thrive, in literally the most inhospitable environment in existence, the cold, hot, empty, radiation-filled dark void?

Let's assume the Earth has gone bust, or is about to very soon. If we really dedicated ourselves to moving enough people into space so that the human race lives to see another day, then there wouldn't be much bother in getting there. The focus is on if we could adapt ourselves and the environment around us to survive long-term, and build ourselves back up to pre-evacuation standards in population, living conditions and industrial capacity.

I once read an article on how living in the Asteroid Belt has some serious advantages, compared to living planetside. A massive torus-shaped space station can spin, and give the effect of any gravity field we wanted, particularly good ol' 1G. In the center of the station, there would be no "phantom forces" pushing you one way or another, so a "good arm" qualifies as an SSTO transportation system. The entire Belt holds about 4% of the mass of the Moon, but the Moon's pretty big, and 4% of any big number is still a big number. In space, the Sun gives an intense glare, and that glare never stops. The "world" really could depend on solar power entirely for it's electricity needs.

However, it wouldn't be a walk in the park. When the survival of your species is measured in how many centremetres of metal separates you from the vacuum, you will change. The early years will be very brutal, both in the toil each person will feel, mentally and physically, and on the necessities and luxuries the current western system of living gives us. There is also the engineering challenges, how can we shield ourselves from the thousands of solar flares we would have to endure to succeed? What do we do if a stray asteroid grazes a station?

How would we survive without the Earth, or any planet or moon for that matter, and how would that survival change the human race in terms of society, industry, culture, government, science and engineering etc.?

[Top8]

The National Space Society has an incredible range of resources http://www.nss.org/ as does the http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/mars-direct.

I have been spearheading the design of a hard-sf setting set in 2070 that asks the same questions you do.

The university of Arizona also deals with lifesupport related issues and has a cool lunar farm project: http://ag.arizona.edu/lunargreenhouse/

As to the economics and politics there are more than a few possilbilities - my team and I explored many of them for our setting research.

Feel free to take a look http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67002-Visions-of-2070. There is also a related challenge up.

Cheers,

Chris

Edited January 25, 2014 by Top8

[SargeRho]

We won't have much of a choice, if we survive long enough. It's move on or go extinct. Massive garden ships, or fleets of all sorts of ships would probably the way to go. I doubt we'll ever fully abandon Planets, they are just too useful to do that, wether it be ressource extraction, recreation or food.

I think EVE Online has a pretty good idea of how it might be (the FTL aside). Interstellar civilisation exists, and can continue to do so mostly without planets. A few things are produced on planets, but most stuff if gathered from Space. Asteroids make exellent sources of fuel and construction material, if you plan to use it in Space. They have neglible gravity, so lifting stuff off an asteroid is about as easy as it gets. Fleets like the one seen in BSG, likely without the BSG, might become common place a few millenia from now, or centuries even.

[Themohawkninja]

I'd be quite concerned about asteroid collisions.

[Aghanim]

This reminds me of Halo: The Cole Protocol, where the survivor of a planet that are invaded lives in an asteroid belt with artificial gravity and they all connected by a network of tubes that are controlled by an AI

[Nibb31]

I'd be quite concerned about asteroid collisions.

The asteroid belt is really sparse. If you were sitting on any one of those rocks, you couldn't see another one with the naked eye.

[Nuke]

what you do is slam all the asteroids into ceres, this should heat up the planet (it wont be an asteroid anymore if we clear its orbit) somewhat to make settling it a little bit easier.

[Skyler4856]

I'd be quite concerned about asteroid collisions.

Those quite rare.

[Themohawkninja]

The asteroid belt is really sparse. If you were sitting on any one of those rocks, you couldn't see another one with the naked eye.

I know, but we worry about asteroid impacts on Earth all the time (with quite a few near-misses to show for it), so therefore an entire asteroid belt would further increase that risk, right?

[Top8]

Really large habs would have contingencies. Docking mishaps and intentional collisions would also be part of those defensive plans - so significant natural collision threats probly won't be a primary issue.

The radiation shelters on habitats could easily serve as evac centers for other emergencies too. Large Habs would need a fairly significant proportion of living space that qualifies as low rad ... burried in rubble or the coated in slag / tailing from refining / mining.

[PTNLemay]

The rocky/icy materials that make up the asteroid would probably go a long way to absorbing most of the hard cosmic rads. Especially if you keep that rock wall a good several feet thick (which we will want to do to make sure the thing doesn't crumble). But even for space station not built into rock I'm sure we'll come up with some clever tricks. I remember hearing that liquid water is a fantastic radiation absorber. So worst case we could just fill tanks with water and stick them along the outside walls of the station. I imagine we would need to keep heaters in those tanks to melt the water when you want to take it out (because it would probably freeze over time).

At any rate, fun stuff to think about. Oh! Another thing I wonder about these potential "worldlets", how thick would the air have to be before we would start to see a blue-ky effect on the inside? Or start seeing cloud patterns and stuff like that. I imagine that would really help the space habitat feel more like home.

Edited January 26, 2014 by PTNLemay

[Drunkrobot]

Oh! Another thing I wonder about these potential "worldlets", how thick would the air have to be before we would start to see a blue-ky effect on the inside? Or start seeing cloud patterns and stuff like that. I imagine that would really help the space habitat feel more like home.

I imagine the larger hab-stations (the ones with enough space between the settlements and the "ceiling" to allow for a simulated sky i.e. 100-500 metres of headroom) would use "mood lighting" to simulate the day/night cycle, as well as the seasons (bathe the ceiling in blue for day, give an orange tint for autumn etc.). The smaller, more spartan stations could try something similar, but not at the same degree.

[Rondon]

what Id be worried about is energy, the solar irradiation received is the inverse square of the distance , now roughly the center of the belt is 2.7 (AU), at that distance you get 14% of the solar energy that you would per m2 of space near earth, making solar power comparatively more difficult.

[Stargate525]

We still have no data on the long-term effects of zero-g to the human body. It's entirely possible that, after two or three generations of living in primarily 0g, that large gravity wells are closed off to us forever.

I also don't see exactly why this is a good plan; you need to simulate the atmosphere, simulate the gravity, simulate the ecology... all of which would be much easier on a planet. The biggest problem is getting back out. As soon as we get a working space elevator, that single disadvantage is almost completely negated. Mining operations, I can see. Manufacturing too. But long-term habitations, commerce, civics? Best on solid ground, in my opinion.

[Drunkrobot]

what Id be worried about is energy, the solar irradiation received is the inverse square of the distance , now roughly the center of the belt is 2.7 (AU), at that distance you get 14% of the solar energy that you would per m2 of space near earth, making solar power comparatively more difficult.

On the other hand, in the vacuum of space, there is no atmosphere to absorb such a large chunk of that energy, so the differences in output between a solar cell on Ceres and a solar cell on Earth is not THAT large. Construction in space means no penalty for going large (superstructures on Earth must contend with gravity and the wind if they must stay upright), so any space based solar power stations we build can still generate a lot of power. Even if that's not enough, there should be slightly more Uranium per metre cubed of asteroid than in the Earth's crust (planetary formation causes the heavier elements to sink into the centre, beyond the reach of humans), so fission power could be reeled upon for quite a while.

[pxi]

I know, but we worry about asteroid impacts on Earth all the time (with quite a few near-misses to show for it), so therefore an entire asteroid belt would further increase that risk, right?

We worry about them hitting the Earth, because at the moment we've a fish-in-barrel situation with our civilization right now.

A large colony in the asteroid belt being obliterated by an asteroid impact would be a tragedy, but not the end of everything.

[CalculusWarrior]

I know, but we worry about asteroid impacts on Earth all the time (with quite a few near-misses to show for it), so therefore an entire asteroid belt would further increase that risk, right?

Also, Earth has quite the gravity well sucking in all sorts of asteroids and other debris. A space station moving at roughly the same speed as all the other asteroids in the belt would likely be much safer.

[magnemoe]

On the other hand, in the vacuum of space, there is no atmosphere to absorb such a large chunk of that energy, so the differences in output between a solar cell on Ceres and a solar cell on Earth is not THAT large. Construction in space means no penalty for going large (superstructures on Earth must contend with gravity and the wind if they must stay upright), so any space based solar power stations we build can still generate a lot of power. Even if that's not enough, there should be slightly more Uranium per metre cubed of asteroid than in the Earth's crust (planetary formation causes the heavier elements to sink into the centre, beyond the reach of humans), so fission power could be reeled upon for quite a while.

Yes another way to increase effect is to use mirrors to concentrate the solar power. This is also easier in space as you don't need strong structures as you say.

[Nibb31]

I know, but we worry about asteroid impacts on Earth all the time (with quite a few near-misses to show for it), so therefore an entire asteroid belt would further increase that risk, right?

Not more than on any other atmosphere-free body. Asteroids in the asteroid belt are in a more or less stable orbit around the sun. Basically, they are all on the same trajectory so the risk of collision between them is minimal.

[Top8]

Even if that's not enough, there should be slightly more Uranium per metre cubed of asteroid than in the Earth's crust (planetary formation causes the heavier elements to sink into the centre, beyond the reach of humans), so fission power could be reeled upon for quite a while.

If you go with a Thorium LFTR reactor you open up millenia of energy for an entire civ in the belt.

[palioxis1248]

So far this discussion has mainly talked about the technical difficulties of building an asteroid colony. But there is one nail in the coffin for the independent asteroid colony: intolerance of stupidity and irregularity.

As quoted from Atomic Rockets,

If a planetary colony falls into barbarism, everybody reverts to a non-technological agrarian society. If an asteroid civilization falls into barbarism, everybody dies.

And you wouldn't even need the way of life on the asteroid habitat to break down - one idiot opening an airlock will usually suffice.

Unless we can find a way to make man-made systems as foolproof as Earth's biosphere, long-term asteroid habitats are a long way away.

[magnemoe]

So far this discussion has mainly talked about the technical difficulties of building an asteroid colony. But there is one nail in the coffin for the independent asteroid colony: intolerance of stupidity and irregularity.

As quoted from Atomic Rockets,

If a planetary colony falls into barbarism, everybody reverts to a non-technological agrarian society. If an asteroid civilization falls into barbarism, everybody dies.

And you wouldn't even need the way of life on the asteroid habitat to break down - one idiot opening an airlock will usually suffice.

Unless we can find a way to make man-made systems as foolproof as Earth's biosphere, long-term asteroid habitats are a long way away.

Yes, however an asteroid settlement will be an long term workplace in the beginning, think an oil platform but with far longer stays.

We have had remote settlements like antarctic bases a long time, as the collony grows in size it will also add redundant features.

Some by planing other as you keep the old systems like power relay after adding an new an larger.

Next level up will be something like an remote army base, you get some external business providing services, they and perhaps some high ranking people brings family.

After this you get an company town like an remote mining town, however probably with multiple companies share facilities.

Not something you can knock out by accident unlike an oil platform as it will be to large and have too many independent systems unless the people build it was total idiots. Sabotage or terrorism might be able to take it down but will require coordination and resources. you will obvious screen access for an long time anyway.

As for falling back into barbarism, yes the settlement will not be self supplied but few places on Earth is self supplied anyway.

[Top8]

The layers of redundant systems and the culture that grows up around livining is what amounts to a large machine will make for careful people. Punishments for doing stupid things will also tend to be harsh.

The other thing is that on Earth we have a free ride. Onc can belive all sorts of nonsense and it won't get you killed becuase the biosphere is just so robust on an individual scale. Here we can just choose to ignore climiate science (not making a comment on my position in that, just saying on an individual level people can live without thinking about it). On an asteroid colony people will take the science of their life support systems very, very seriously. It won't be a political issue for debate - it will be a truth that if the aeroponic farms are not doing well everyone needs to worry about it.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Top8

[CavemanNinja]

There is a major problem with asteroid settlement. Even in the best of situations, which is a mile or two wide asteroid that has cleared the neighborhood, so to speak, you have limited resources. I do not mean oxygen or nitrogen or methane by this. I mean the metals and fuel needed to sustain a long-term colony that needs repairs, new vehicles, and spacesuits every few years. Once the metals and ores run out, we will have to develop a way to either synthetically create plastics, or abandon the colony. There is probably one exception to this, and that's an asteroid field. But, i have no idea how you attempt even a landing there, what with the chaos going on.

[PTNLemay]

If a planetary colony falls into barbarism, everybody reverts to a non-technological agrarian society.

Call me crazy, but I think that would make a super fun story. Find a way to get a feudal society inside a big sprawling set of asteroid colonies. With each colony being it's own city-state. Priests would hand down the sacred knowledge needed to keep the life support mechanisms in working order, with the peasants interpreting it as the priests breathing divine life-force into the machines, which then give the life force back to the citizens of the habitat (as fresh air and water and such). The soliders would wear powerful relics of the past (powered-armor space suits) and go into epic hand-to-hand combat with other realms (other asteroid-cities). Since the priests don't want the peasents becoming too independent they keep knowledge of explosives and firearms closely secret, so most fighting is done with melee weapons. Maybe energy-enhanced weapons like a heated-blades or chainsaws.

I'd be like Warhammer 40k, only without FTL and without all the dumb aliens.

"And remember, my children, never travel beyond those stone walls unless you have been blessed by the Star Guards, and granted one of the mighty silver armors to protect your body and soul."

"But high priest, what lies beyond! You hold our curiosity back, we should be free explore beyond the stone! Just once, would you not let us see just past this door?" *reaches for air-lock hatch*

"Stop this heretic before he kills us all!"