Author Topic: Space Colonies of Futures Past  (Read 10184 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Space Colonies of Futures Past
« on: 05/18/2009 08:45 pm »
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1376/1

The god that failed
by Dwayne Day
Monday, May 18, 2009

"Asimov’s article, “The Next Frontier?” and illustrated by Pierre Mion, was written as a first-person account of a visit to an L-5 colony in the far-distant future of 2026. The account is mostly description: the National Geographic reporter is met by the colony’s director George Fenton, who shows him around and explains how everything works. Asimov experiences the gradual onset of simulated gravity as he travels from the arrival hub down a spoke to the colony’s rim. The colony is nearly 1,800 meters in diameter and houses 10,000 people."

"Within a very short time after Asimov’s article, O’Neill would publish The High Frontier, the L-5 Society would gain more members, and the pro-space colonization idea would form into a genuine movement.

But then it died.

Looking back over three decades to a time when this movement was just forming the most glaring conclusion is that it never really caught on. It never transformed into a true mass movement with broad appeal, millions of members, elected representatives in the government, and a clear legislative, social and economic agenda. Why was that?"

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #1 on: 05/18/2009 09:10 pm »
The space colony idea failed because only a tiny subset of people would want to trade living on the real earth for living in a simulated earthlike habitat. It's like suggesting people would really want to move to the nearest shopping mall and stay inside it for the rest of their lives. It's the same reason almost nobody really wants to live in an undersea city, a tunnel on the Moon, or in Antarctica. And most of the people who would want to move away from Earth to another planet would prefer a real one, even if uninhabitable. I'd move to Mars or the moons of Saturn in a heartbeat, but an O'Neill colony? Why bother? That's also why Heinlein's lunar colony in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a penal colony.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #2 on: 05/18/2009 10:34 pm »
It's like suggesting people would really want to move to the nearest shopping mall and stay inside it for the rest of their lives.

http://www.nouvelleatnatick.com/

Quote
Introducing Nouvelle at Natick, a luxury condominium community combining the best of urban lifestyle with the comforts of suburban living. Located at Natick Collection – the Metro West’s premier living, dining, and shopping destination

Cough... that is a condo inside of the Natick Collect, a mall...

But you are right, when we dream of space we dream of wide open spaces with endless views that will rival the <insert awesome natural wonder here>
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #3 on: 05/18/2009 10:47 pm »
They probably won't catch on in the US until they start building O Neil type colonies.
There just is plenty of room there to go find a better place to live if you're sick of an urban environment.
But even a Standford Torus Colony may be a vast improvement in quality of living for very crowded countries such as Japan.
An O'Neil Colony could be a very desirable location over living in the bowels of a mega city just by the fact it was designed with a new clean slate vs being urban sprawl.
Of course there are other factors that could end up driving space colonization money from mining or just getting away from earth governments.

These were the driving factors behind Europe's colonization of the new world.
Many settlers did trade short term comfort and security for freedom and profit.

From a species survival stand point space colonies would be collectively more secure then a single planet even though each one is less secure then then a planet.

A single dino killer impact or nuclear war probably can wipe out a civilization living on a single planet.
But it would take an event like a nearby star going nova to wipe out a civilization that has mastered living in space.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2009 10:58 pm by Patchouli »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #4 on: 05/18/2009 11:32 pm »
It's like suggesting people would really want to move to the nearest shopping mall and stay inside it for the rest of their lives.

http://www.nouvelleatnatick.com/

Quote
Introducing Nouvelle at Natick, a luxury condominium community combining the best of urban lifestyle with the comforts of suburban living. Located at Natick Collection – the Metro West’s premier living, dining, and shopping destination

Cough... that is a condo inside of the Natick Collect, a mall...


Hard to tell from the pictures -- is that a "grand mall", or more of a "petit mall"?  ;)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #5 on: 05/19/2009 03:58 pm »
It's the same reason almost nobody really wants to live in an undersea city, a tunnel on the Moon, or in Antarctica.

The undersea cities comparison is a good one.  That idea was popular in science fiction stories in the 50s and 60s, but it never really captured peoples' imagination.  Nobody did engineering studies.  Space colonies gathered more attention and an activist group.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #6 on: 05/19/2009 04:27 pm »
It's like suggesting people would really want to move to the nearest shopping mall and stay inside it for the rest of their lives.

http://www.nouvelleatnatick.com/

Quote
Introducing Nouvelle at Natick, a luxury condominium community combining the best of urban lifestyle with the comforts of suburban living. Located at Natick Collection – the Metro West’s premier living, dining, and shopping destination

Cough... that is a condo inside of the Natick Collect, a mall...


Hard to tell from the pictures -- is that a "grand mall", or more of a "petit mall"?  ;)

Beside the point. Living in a mall where you're never allowed to leave is the same thing as living in a really nice prison. Being under house arrest in a high-end Manhattan condo would be better than being in Rikers, but sooner or later you'd get sick of being there, no matter how nice the view of Central Park.

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #7 on: 05/19/2009 04:29 pm »
Hard to tell from the pictures -- is that a "grand mall", or more of a "petit mall"?  ;)

Oooh. I just audibly groaned and  now my coworkers are looking at me :D

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #8 on: 05/19/2009 04:32 pm »
They probably won't catch on in the US until they start building O Neil type colonies.
There just is plenty of room there to go find a better place to live if you're sick of an urban environment.
But even a Standford Torus Colony may be a vast improvement in quality of living for very crowded countries such as Japan.
An O'Neil Colony could be a very desirable location over living in the bowels of a mega city just by the fact it was designed with a new clean slate vs being urban sprawl.
Of course there are other factors that could end up driving space colonization money from mining or just getting away from earth governments.

These were the driving factors behind Europe's colonization of the new world.
Many settlers did trade short term comfort and security for freedom and profit.

From a species survival stand point space colonies would be collectively more secure then a single planet even though each one is less secure then then a planet.

A single dino killer impact or nuclear war probably can wipe out a civilization living on a single planet.
But it would take an event like a nearby star going nova to wipe out a civilization that has mastered living in space.

The points been made many times in the past, but it also misses the point. Living in a space colony would probably be an improvement over living in a Tokyo microtel, but those aren't the people who will be going. The only point of living in a space colony is if you have a job in space that can only be done in space. So probably the first space colony, when and if, will be inhabitted by spatial equipment mechanics (I did portray this in a novel called "Acts of Conscience" about ten years ago). And a space colony is a different animal from a space hotel. People work in Antarctica on a temporary basis, lots of people vacation in Antarctica (cruise ships, anyway), but where are the cities in the ice anticipated by the same science fiction that thought there would be space colonies? (Isaac Asimov himself anticipated O'Neill by a decade with his 1960s article "There's No Place like Spome.")

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #9 on: 05/19/2009 05:33 pm »
The points been made many times in the past, but it also misses the point. Living in a space colony would probably be an improvement over living in a Tokyo microtel, but those aren't the people who will be going.

I would argue that point with you, the microtel will most likely be an improvement over the "first" colonies. The premium is weight, the larger the live-able space, the more it weighs. Sorry, it will be like living in a closet that "may" have a window. How many windows where there on skylab again?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline SpaceCat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #10 on: 05/19/2009 08:19 pm »
The undersea cities comparison is a good one.  That idea was popular in science fiction stories in the 50s and 60s, but it never really captured peoples' imagination.  Nobody did engineering studies.  Space colonies gathered more attention and an activist group.

LOL- there's always somebody willing to do anything- just never enough to make it profitable, I guess.  When I saw those great 'underwater cities' in the GM Futurama at the 1964 World's Fair I said, 'hey, that's for me!' and fully expected to spend most of my life working in such a place.  Twenty-two years later I helped build "Jules Undersea Lodge"..... still waiting for the next one. :)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #11 on: 05/19/2009 10:37 pm »
FYI, one of the world's most luxurious hotels is currently under construction and its underwater.  Sorry, I can't remember the name.

I'm sorry but I need to respectfully disagree with everything above.  The reason it has never caught on is that it is too expensive.  What we want is to go to space, or at least make it so our kids can go.  We're very disinterested to send a small handful of experts in our stead.

So long as space travel is not safe, quick, convenient nor economical, it will not "catch on."  It is specifically because of this that anyone who is a space enthusiast should support advanced propulsion research.  Chemical rockets will never give us what we want and need.  Never.  Doesn't matter if they're SSTO or RLV.  They will NEVER be cheap enough for the average Joe to vacation there.

Offline DerekL

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #12 on: 05/20/2009 05:50 am »
So long as space travel is not safe, quick, convenient nor economical, it will not "catch on."

Neither train travel nor air travel started out safe, quick, convenient, or economical - and both 'caught on' long before those four conditions were satisfied.  Some time after, the average Joe started traveling via those methods too...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #13 on: 05/20/2009 12:02 pm »
Chemical rockets will never give us what we want and need.  Never.  Doesn't matter if they're SSTO or RLV.  They will NEVER be cheap enough for the average Joe to vacation there.

You have no basis to make such a statement other than your biased agenda.     
The same thing was said about jet engines and their use for long distance flights.

Chemical more than likely will be the only way off the planet.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2009 12:04 pm by Jim »

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #14 on: 05/20/2009 12:36 pm »
So long as space travel is not safe, quick, convenient nor economical, it will not "catch on."

Neither train travel nor air travel started out safe, quick, convenient, or economical - and both 'caught on' long before those four conditions were satisfied.  Some time after, the average Joe started traveling via those methods too...

That's not completely accurate. Train travel caught on quickly in the 1820s, in Britain initially, because while it wasn't exactly safe, it was quick, convenient, and economical compared to the alternative. Coach travel wasn't anything other than safe, and for most people, the only affordable means of long distance travel overland was walking. In the US, where distances were comparatively huge, the federal government collaborated with private industry to get the rail network in place. Remember, before transcontinental rail, the only "quick" way to get from NY to California was to board a ship and sail around Cape Horn. The alternative was either a long, expensive, dangerous stage coach ride, take the same ride on your private horse (meaning you had some bucks) or else buy some good boots and start hiking. Air travel didn't catch on for the Average Joe until WW2 funded the development of large, reliable piston engine aircraft. Jet airliners came along largely due to Cold War intercontinental bomber and tanker development (the DeHavilland Comet was a species of exception, but not successful as an airliner, though I think it still flies maritime ASW missions). Pre WW2 there were airliners (Ford Trimotor, DC-3, flying boats, Zeppelins, etc.), but they weren't for the common man. More like the Concorde in that regard.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #15 on: 05/20/2009 12:43 pm »
Chemical rockets will never give us what we want and need.  Never.  Doesn't matter if they're SSTO or RLV.  They will NEVER be cheap enough for the average Joe to vacation there.

You have no basis to make such a statement other than your biased agenda.     
The same thing was said about jet engines and their use for long distance flights.

Chemical more than likely will be the only way off the planet.

I agree with you, and I honest believe there's no sound reason to move beyond chemical until such time as we are ready to move beyond the inner solar system. LEO, L-points, Moon, and NEOs can all be done with an all-chemical architecture, both for exploration and for exploitation. Mars can be explored by that same architecture. When it comes time to exploit Mars (if that time ever comes) and to begin exploring the outer solar system, I would visualize the beginning of nuclear powered spacecraft, but I also foresee they will never come closer to Earth than an L-point, and will undergo final assembly there. Whether we will ever find a reason to do any of that remains to be seen.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #16 on: 05/20/2009 03:13 pm »
Chemical rockets will never give us what we want and need.  Never.  Doesn't matter if they're SSTO or RLV.  They will NEVER be cheap enough for the average Joe to vacation there.

You have no basis to make such a statement other than your biased agenda.     
The same thing was said about jet engines and their use for long distance flights.

Chemical more than likely will be the only way off the planet.

You have it backward.  I have the agenda I have precisely because this is true and your illustration fails in a hundred ways.  Facts are facts.  Chemical propulsion will not be used to do more than lift a few scores of professionals giving us a vicarious experience because it cannot be used for more.  It is too expensive and you'd see that as an obvious observation were not something driving you to disagree with me.  You have made the point yourself that space travel is not cheap and will never be cheap so why disagree with my observation?

On the other hand, you have no basis for the assertion that "Chemical more than likely will be the only way off the planet."  That's just pessimism.  What is your analysis based upon other than your attitude?  You have a crystal ball that can see into the future?  You look back on the history of human discovery and invention and somehow from that come to the conclusion that's all over with?  No more?
« Last Edit: 05/20/2009 03:24 pm by GI-Thruster »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #17 on: 05/20/2009 03:43 pm »
"Grand Mall" is totally excellent.

Chemical rockets to the Moon, I think.  Possibly, under special UN license, maybe, several Orion type craft launches to ship ice from Antarctica up to the first lunar colony.  Only enough ice to tide the colony over until it can mine sufficient quantities from the poles.  Nuclear rockets for exploration of the solar system.  Light sails for unmanned craft within the solar system, for robotic exploration.

Continued work on demonstrating these theories of advanced propulsion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #18 on: 05/20/2009 04:08 pm »

1.Chemical propulsion will not be used to do more than lift a few scores of professionals giving us a vicarious experience because it cannot be used for more.

2.  It is too expensive and you'd see that as an obvious observation were not something driving you to disagree with me.  You have made the point yourself that space travel is not cheap and will never be cheap so why disagree with my observation?


1.  That is complete BS and unsubstantiated.

2.  I have never said that it will never become cheap.  It is feasible with RLV's to greatly reduce cost, but the driver is flight rate.   However, there is no need for a high flight rate at this time and hence it is not cheap at this time.

It isn't pessimism, it is realism.   You plan for what you have now.   I am not going to wait for something that may never happen.  Same goes for a cure for cancer, fusion power, etc. 
« Last Edit: 05/20/2009 04:24 pm by Jim »

Offline DerekL

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Colonies of Futures Past
« Reply #19 on: 05/20/2009 04:23 pm »
In the US, where distances were comparatively huge, the federal government collaborated with private industry to get the rail network in place.

In an alternate history story, that would make a great premise.  In actual history, with the notable exception of the transcontinental, the federal government did no such thing.  In fact for most of history, the governments relationship with the railroads can best be described as "hostile apathy".  (Except in the world wars when the government suddenly needed the railroads.)

One legacy of this is that with the exception of the (pardon the pun) train wreck that is Amtrak and a pittance from the Post Office, you'll note that railroads are the only mode of transport without governmental or quasi governmental support.

Tags:
 

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