Author Topic: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?  (Read 38207 times)

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
I think the advantages of O'Neil type colonies vs building civilization and industry on planetary surfaces are often not recognized.

In space you can have whatever strength of gravity that suits the process you're performing, you can have 24/7 sunlight - at 1 AU from the sun that's over a kW of free energy for each m^2of collection surface, you can have temperatures of thousands of degrees using mirrors, and still have near absolute zero temperatures in the shade only inches away.

You don't have to contend with a pesky atmosphere, and you don't have to battle that gravity every time you bring something in or take something out.

Even the raw materials are available in the form of NEO's, a meteoroid just 50 meters in diameter masses over a 150,000 tonnes (at 2.5g/cc).

I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
 If you locate the initial effort in GEO you can have teleoperation at low latency, dead sats for initial raw material, and then asteroid regolith harvested by vehicles largely made of dead sats. All with nearly constant sunlight.

Sol

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Planetary surfaces like Mars, definitely. You have a huge amount of resources available (tons and tons of free metal just within walking distance of any spot), you have an atmosphere that takes care of radiation shielding for you plus easy ISRU anywhere on the planet, you have frozen water, you have regolith that is rounded by aeolian processes instead of resembling broken glass (and thus can serve as a good growing medium, etc), the atmospheric pressure can be increased to high enough to not require pressure suits by increasing the surface temperature slightly through sprinkling carbon black powder strategically over the surface (the higher pressure also allowing liquid water and maybe even plants to grow on the surface, possibly), etc.

All at rest with respect to you, as opposed to moving in different directions at different delta-vs.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
I think the advantages of O'Neil type colonies vs building civilization and industry on planetary surfaces are often not recognized.

In space you can have whatever strength of gravity that suits the process you're performing, you can have 24/7 sunlight - at 1 AU from the sun that's over a kW of free energy for each m^2of collection surface, you can have temperatures of thousands of degrees using mirrors, and still have near absolute zero temperatures in the shade only inches away.

You don't have to contend with a pesky atmosphere, and you don't have to battle that gravity every time you bring something in or take something out.

Even the raw materials are available in the form of NEO's, a meteoroid just 50 meters in diameter masses over a 150,000 tonnes (at 2.5g/cc).

It all matters on the industry.  All things have to be taken into consideration including energy, local resources, available technology, and etc. 

Surely some industries will prefer space whereas others will prefer the surface.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
None of you have mentioned one of the most important factors, gravity and the human body.

Artificial gravity on space stations is quite doable by rotation.  The gravity on a planet like Mars cannot be altered.  Since 1g gravity is required to long term habitation, the only acceptable location for permanent human presence in space is on space stations.     

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Since 1g gravity is required to long term habitation, the only acceptable location for permanent human presence in space is on space stations.     

Prove it.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Since 1g gravity is required to long term habitation, the only acceptable location for permanent human presence in space is on space stations.     

Prove it.

What is there to prove?  Unless a way to eliminate the negative effects of low or zero gravity on humans, then permanent human settlement on low gravity objects can be ruled out.

The only way we know to counter eliminate these effects is by centrifugal force.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
A lot of things in even fractional gee are far improved over zero gravity.

There's no compelling proof I've seen that Mars gravity will be insufficient for long-term habitation.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1144
A lot of things in even fractional gee are far improved over zero gravity.

There's no compelling proof I've seen that Mars gravity will be insufficient for long-term habitation.
Wasn't the canceled centrifuge for the ISS supposed to settle this?

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
What is there to prove?  Unless a way to eliminate the negative effects of low or zero gravity on humans, then permanent human settlement on low gravity objects can be ruled out.

The only way we know to counter eliminate these effects is by centrifugal force.

My point is that we have very little data. We don't know if the negative effects are linear, or if there's a knee in the curve that you can stay above and keep the bulk of those problems at bay. There is some minimum acceptable limit of gravity for long term human habitation. The only places on the curve that we have long term data are 1g and 0g.

Mars gravity could very well be sufficient. Lunar gravity might be. Heck, even Ceres gravity might be. So, I strongly object to your contention that 1g is required for long term human habitation.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #10 on: 08/19/2011 08:07 pm »
A lot of things in even fractional gee are far improved over zero gravity.

There's no compelling proof I've seen that Mars gravity will be insufficient for long-term habitation.
Wasn't the canceled centrifuge for the ISS supposed to settle this?

No, not for humans. Would have provided some analog data for small mammals.
JRF

Online MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #11 on: 08/19/2011 11:44 pm »
There are only 2 ways to settle the gravity question.  One is build a test station and spin up to your required G level and the other is put feet on Mars.

The first is probably more versatile in that the same unit can provide data on any required gravity while the second will provide real life science, work and discovery as well as being a hell of a lot more interesting.

BUT...  we can go on and on as we have before in different threads...

Mick.

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #12 on: 08/20/2011 12:50 am »
Planetary surfaces like Mars, definitely.

Confident start

Quote
You have a huge amount of resources available (tons and tons of free metal just within walking distance of any spot),

 NEO's also have a huge amount of mass relative to the needs of foreseeable space industry, and it's likely we'll find NEO's easier to get to and from than Mars.
Quote
you have an atmosphere that takes care of radiation shielding for you plus easy ISRU anywhere on the planet,

Mars atmosphere, while better than nothing, isn't itself likely to be enough shielding for long term habitation, shelters will still be needed, possibly thick walled houses will be enough in themselves, but a similar system of using mass to stop radiation works as well in space.

Quote
you have frozen water, you have regolith that is rounded by aeolian processes instead of resembling broken glass (and thus can serve as a good growing medium, etc),
NEO's also are believed to contain water, I suspect chemical properties will be more important to plants than the physical properties of the growth medium, roots are remarkably adept at growing around sharp objects, and there are recent and coarse volcanic soils on Earth that make excellent farming soil.
Quote
the atmospheric pressure can be increased to high enough to not require pressure suits by increasing the surface temperature slightly through sprinkling carbon black powder strategically over the surface (the higher pressure also allowing liquid water and maybe even plants to grow on the surface, possibly), etc.

This warming of Mars while possible, is not a cheap or simple task, and would bring its own challenges; subsidence of land over permifrost, increased dust storms, less surface light.

Quote
All at rest with respect to you, as opposed to moving in different directions at different delta-vs.
Once you've captured your NEO's they are at rest with respect to you, and the lower gravity makes their disassembly easier. (it has occured to me that dust from this could be a major problem, to avoid creating a mini nebula, each NEO might need to be bagged - which could actually help in the recovery of volatiles).
« Last Edit: 08/20/2011 01:12 am by Andrew_W »
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #13 on: 08/20/2011 01:09 am »
The surface of Mars is (as is often pointed out) less hospitable than the middle of the Sahara, or the middle of the Antarctic icecap. Now, we could build huge rich cities in both of these places if there's an economically recoverable resource to be had, is that the case on Mars?

Mars I think, offers far less in the way of resources that the Earth, and that's across the board, if there was some individual resource there that  Earth doesn't have, or couldn't recover as cheaply, Mars could boom, I can't think of anything.

As I've mentioned, free floating colonies mining NEO's can offer several resources that don't exist on Earth, I think it's these differences to Earth rather than the similarities of other planets to Earth that are the key to space colonization.
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Online MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #14 on: 08/20/2011 01:13 am »
The surface of Mars is (as is often pointed out) less hospitable than the middle of the Sahara, or the middle of the Antarctic icecap. Now, we could build huge rich cities in both of these places if there's an economically recoverable resource to be had, is that the case on Mars?

Mars I think, offers far less in the way of resources that the Earth, and that's across the board, if there was some individual resource there that  Earth doesn't have, or couldn't recover as cheaply, Mars could boom, I can't think of anything.

As I've mentioned, free floating colonies mining NEO's can offer several resources that don't exist on Earth, I think it's these differences to Earth rather than the similarities of other planets to Earth that are the key to space colonization.

This we won't know for sure until we go there with a pick and shovel.

Mick.

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #15 on: 08/20/2011 01:16 am »
The surface of Mars is (as is often pointed out) less hospitable than the middle of the Sahara, or the middle of the Antarctic icecap. Now, we could build huge rich cities in both of these places if there's an economically recoverable resource to be had, is that the case on Mars?

Mars I think, offers far less in the way of resources that the Earth, and that's across the board, if there was some individual resource there that  Earth doesn't have, or couldn't recover as cheaply, Mars could boom, I can't think of anything.

As I've mentioned, free floating colonies mining NEO's can offer several resources that don't exist on Earth, I think it's these differences to Earth rather than the similarities of other planets to Earth that are the key to space colonization.

This we won't know for sure until we go there with a pick and shovel.

Mick.

I'm betting that, as would be expected, any heavy metal riches have sunk to the planets core.
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Online MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #16 on: 08/20/2011 01:27 am »
The surface of Mars is (as is often pointed out) less hospitable than the middle of the Sahara, or the middle of the Antarctic icecap. Now, we could build huge rich cities in both of these places if there's an economically recoverable resource to be had, is that the case on Mars?

Mars I think, offers far less in the way of resources that the Earth, and that's across the board, if there was some individual resource there that  Earth doesn't have, or couldn't recover as cheaply, Mars could boom, I can't think of anything.

As I've mentioned, free floating colonies mining NEO's can offer several resources that don't exist on Earth, I think it's these differences to Earth rather than the similarities of other planets to Earth that are the key to space colonization.

This we won't know for sure until we go there with a pick and shovel.

Mick.

I'm betting that, as would be expected, any heavy metal riches have sunk to the planets core.

Andrew.  I would me much more than happy to confirm that in person for you.  Transport and accomodation will be up to you though.

Mick.

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #17 on: 08/20/2011 01:35 am »
I'd be happy to send you to Mars Mick, but I'll at least need some indication that there's a possibility of untold mineral wealth before we put feet on the ground, even if Mars is littered with gold, even at it's heady price these days, we probably wouldn't cover the costs. We need something there that cannot be obtained on Earth at a lower cost, anything spring to mind?
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Online MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #18 on: 08/20/2011 02:19 am »
I'd be happy to send you to Mars Mick, but I'll at least need some indication that there's a possibility of untold mineral wealth before we put feet on the ground, even if Mars is littered with gold, even at it's heady price these days, we probably wouldn't cover the costs. We need something there that cannot be obtained on Earth at a lower cost, anything spring to mind?

Peace and quiet springs to mind.

Back to the OP.  If "Building" means the construction of infrastructure then you cannot beat a planetary surface for the sole fact that the human species evolved and grew in gravity.  That is what we know and live with every day.  If, on the other hand, you mean growth and profitability then I think that would depend on the type of business being "Built ".

Mick.

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Which is easier, building industry on planets, or in space?
« Reply #19 on: 08/20/2011 02:43 am »
I'd be happy to send you to Mars Mick, but I'll at least need some indication that there's a possibility of untold mineral wealth before we put feet on the ground, even if Mars is littered with gold, even at it's heady price these days, we probably wouldn't cover the costs. We need something there that cannot be obtained on Earth at a lower cost, anything spring to mind?

A resource that can be found on Mars that cannot be obtained on Earth at a lower costs: land that does not belong to any government, and is safe from sovereign intervention.

As for the need for this "resource":

A week ago I heard about some millionaires giving money to a group planing to found an independent libertarian floating island society.  (Insert Andrew Ryan joke here) And if one of these "plans" has surfaced to my attention un-looked for, there must be many groups that wish to found their own society according to their own rules, and could take advantage of this resource Mars has to offer.
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0