Space Colonies

Status
Not open for further replies.

SchizophrenicMC

Well-Known Member
So, recently, I've been thinking about space colonies, the likes of which were theorized in the 60s and 70s. I wanted to know if anyone had any opinions on the various types of realistic permanent space colonies.

Stanford Torus:
ts

Stanford_Torus.jpg


O'Neill Cylinder:
Spacecolony1.jpg

spacecolony3edit.jpe

oneillbridge-800.jpg


Bernal Sphere:
bernalexterior-600.jpg

Bernal_Sphere_2.jpe



Bring in any thoughts, ideas, questions, and opinions about this stuff.
 
All I can say is that it would take more resources than the Earth has in order to make any one of them to work.

Planet colonization would be much cheaper IMO, but if a spacestation was to be made, I would choose an asteroid like the rubble. It would take less man hours and wouldn't need alot of maintenance.
 
Kind of reminds me of that small game they came out with 10 years ago... I think it was called HALO. LOL
 
All I can say is that it would take more resources than the Earth has in order to make any one of them to work.

I don't think it'd bankrupt the Earth's resources to make a ring 1.8km across tbh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Torus

Or a 20 mile long cylinder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_Cylinder

Or even a 1km wide sphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_Sphere

Those habitats aren't in the thousands of km wide monstrosity range, they're big looking but they're not insanely big like Niven's 1AU wide Ringworld ;) Or the utter madness of a Dyson sphere.

<EDIT>

I should probably add, if you're up there building projects of that size anyway why not mine asteroids for the structural material, thus cutting down even further on Earth-based resources that are needed.
 
Reminds me of a more recent game actually... It's called Mass Effect and has this Citadel thingy, which pretty much combines the first two of the thingies above :-D

But the first things that came to my mind are actually totally negative and destructive again: We can't afford it (no money!) and we don't need it (Mars is around the corner after all, just plant a tree and you have a home).
 
Actually, Stanford, Bernal, and O'Neill's proposals all stated that the materials necessary would be mined from asteroids, and potentially the moon. Speaking of asteroids, it's projected that the main asteroid belt, alone, contains enough material to make space colonies equivalent in habitable area to 3,000 Earths.

To be honest, any of them would be impossible to build, unless already in orbit. And each of them is far more possible and feasible than planetary colonization.

To start with, there are no other planets anywhere near here that remotely fit our needs. Mars is the closest, and even then, it's low-gravity, with completely the wrong atmosphere, low atmospheric pressure, no water resources, and no shielding against radiation. You'd have to make sealed colonies on the planet. In that case, you're doing all the same work as, for less benefit than, a self-contained space colony. If you wanted to terraform, that would take thousands of years, and we don't even know how to start.

By mining the materials for the initial colonies and facilities, from the moon, you could build large numbers of even the 8x32km (5x20 mile) O'Neill Cylinders, water, oxygen, and all (those materials are present in lunar soil), and each one contains hundreds of thousands of colonists. One could be built in as little as a decade.

Further colonies' materials could be mined from asteroids, assuming the infrastructure is set up to do so, and then, you're set. I can't remember who said it, but once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere.

We may not be able to afford it, as of current, but it would take very little material from the Earth, itself, inciting no ecological destruction (in fact, saving it from hundreds of thousands of people's worth). And, it's not as simple as planting a tree on Mars. Plants require oxygen, as well as carbon dioxide. Also, water. Only CO2 is available on Mars. The other thing people always miss, is the atmospheric pressure on Mars is 1/100 that of Earth's. Think the peak of Everest, then drop the pressure another 3 magnitudes. You cannot survive there. Add the radiation, and the sheer distance, you're screwed. Why do you think we've never sent anyone to Mars? It's too expensive. Each rover or probe costs billions of dollars.

To assemble the first O'Neill would cost, probably, in the trillion-dollar range. That's a damn lot of money, but it's still cheaper than having to go to Mars and THEN do it. Further, much of that cost is in creating the infrastructure to create new colonies, meaning each colony afterwards becomes cheaper.
 
Kind of reminds me of that small game they came out with 10 years ago... I think it was called HALO. LOL

Lol the first one reminds me of a Halo array

Reminds me of a more recent game actually... It's called Mass Effect and has this Citadel thingy, which pretty much combines the first two of the thingies above :-D

But the first things that came to my mind are actually totally negative and destructive again: We can't afford it (no money!) and we don't need it (Mars is around the corner after all, just plant a tree and you have a home).

I thought about the citidel as well!
 
Every time I've thought of something like this, I have wondered about materials cost, maintenance, ect. Ive always thought our first go at extra-earth colonies would be either the moon, or a small scale space-station. I figured we could start at the moon. Instead of giant bubble colonies, why not tunnel into the moon? All we would have to do is dig into the regolith, coat the walls in an airtight material, seal them with airlocks, and boom, insta-colony. Using this method, in my opinion, would be better than shuttling up modules, since the only stuff you have to send up are drills, oxy, food, and temporary housing for the tunnel crews. After colonist move in, there might be some problems. Obviously direct sunlight for food production may not be possible(unless large scale windowed areas are considered) but thats where hydroponics could come into play. I also figured that the regolith dug up from tunneling could be used in the production of Helium-3 and used for rocket fuel to help with building the space-stations. Of course the idea of using the moon as a launch pad for inter-planetary colonization isnt new. I guess i subscribe to the KISS idea of colonization. The less we have to shuttle up, the better.
 
Well, the obvious course of action is establish a permanent base on the moon, first. From there, mine materials to create orbital colonies, and fuel reactors. Ideally, most of the material mined would go to a permanent colony, and the remainder to infrastructure for asteroid mining. At this stage, the moon base can remain, but full-scale mining would cease. (Because Luna is sacred) A fleet, automated or not, of spacecraft would make round trips to the main asteroid belt, and bring back mineral-rich asteroids for processing.

The initial cost is massive, but after the first investment is spent on infrastructure, it becomes cheaper, each time.

The biggest trouble I foresee is, glass is hard to use for large constructs in space, because it has poor strength against compressive loads. The biggest window on the ISS is only several inches across, and a few thick. At the scale seen in all of the above colonies, or a moon base, or any permanent colony, the glass would have to be several feet thick. This is possible, but the problem is, the amount of silica needed is absolutely insane. Of course, alternatives to glass could be possible, but there is no plastic, thus far, capable of handling those loads, either.

In any case, that issue aside, I find the O'Neill Cylinder to be my favorite type of colony. Completely self-sustaining, large enough to contain actual cities, minimal Coriolis effect. They could easily contain all the accoutrements of daily life as we know it, for hundreds of thousands of people. Using massive windows, they'd have real sunlight, reflected by mirror arrays, that change angle to simulate daytime. This means internal agriculture, power generation, and recreation. The construct is so big, it supports its own water cycle. (Coriolis-affected sideways rain would be fun to watch)
 
Something that's always blown my mind is that only 200 years ago it took 6 months to go from England to Australia by boat, and in the modern age (if everything is done correctly) it would take 6 months to get from Earth to Mars. Just something to think about.

I'm not sure what scale the moon-colony would be, but if we WERE to make a permanent settlement there we'd have to avoid making it too large, as taking huge chunks out of the moon would probably completely screw over Earth's tides.

But I do think the obvious first step is to make permanent station on the moon, as an experiment to see if extra-terrestial colonies would be viable. I think they would, I just hope they won't be used the same way Australia was. Obviously, the first colonists would probably all be specialists, but governments have a history of putting things they don't like as far away from everything as possible <_<
 
wait...ive seen things like this in games!
the torus looks like the rings of the halo array, and the cylinder looks like the citadel from Mass effect.
idk, what about planet cracking? start with saturns moons, then radiate outward.
 
Something that's always blown my mind is that only 200 years ago it took 6 months to go from England to Australia by boat, and in the modern age (if everything is done correctly) it would take 6 months to get from Earth to Mars. Just something to think about.

I'm not sure what scale the moon-colony would be, but if we WERE to make a permanent settlement there we'd have to avoid making it too large, as taking huge chunks out of the moon would probably completely screw over Earth's tides.

But I do think the obvious first step is to make permanent station on the moon, as an experiment to see if extra-terrestial colonies would be viable. I think they would, I just hope they won't be used the same way Australia was. Obviously, the first colonists would probably all be specialists, but governments have a history of putting things they don't like as far away from everything as possible <_<
In making a moon base, you wouldn't be likely to be removing material from the moon, but moving it around. Even in making orbital colonies from lunar material, you'd have to remove billions of tons of material to have any notable effect on tides. On the planetary scale, everything we do is tiny.
 
A few problems i can think of would be collisions with rocks and space dust, also the lack of gravity. I think that once some kind of shielding to protect the hulls of the colonies was developed, and we discover how to generate artificial gravity, then these will have many advantages.

The automated ships to thee asteroid belt was also a good idea, especially if you could have the mining operation in the asteroids completely automated as well. cut down on cost and human endangerment
 
By spinning colonies, you create artificial gravity. Shielding with time can come cheap with graphine or some new super ceramic material. In my stories, I will go into detail how these colonies like the O'Neill cylinder is built as I see how.
We need new vehicles like the worker pod from 2001: A Space Odyssey or even the Ball Pods from Gundam. With huge sections built in space, each land or glass section is slid into place. After every few sections, a bulkhead can be built or the main bulkhead is built and slid forward with progress of construction and in the vacuum is the terrain, infrastructure and such.
Farmers is some portions of the country are using food waste as fertilizer. It's non-toxic to the environment and I imagine any that wash into water ways will cause an explosion of the fish population because of the nutrients. With that said, soil is not a problem. Human waste can be recycled by either incinerating or recycling. With fusion reactors scheduled to go into operation within the next forty years, power is not a problem but the mirrors can still double as solar panels. In case of emergency, the panels can close to protect the 'glass' from debris or anything that can smash right through it.
Emergency shelters and life pods are a MUST in case the worst comes to worst. When completed, 500,000 to a million people pending on size can move to this colony and multiple can be built. As long as we avoid slamming one or two or three into earth, all can be well.
 
By spinning colonies, you create artificial gravity. Shielding with time can come cheap with graphine or some new super ceramic material. In my stories, I will go into detail how these colonies like the O'Neill cylinder is built as I see how.
We need new vehicles like the worker pod from 2001: A Space Odyssey or even the Ball Pods from Gundam. With huge sections built in space, each land or glass section is slid into place. After every few sections, a bulkhead can be built or the main bulkhead is built and slid forward with progress of construction and in the vacuum is the terrain, infrastructure and such.
Farmers is some portions of the country are using food waste as fertilizer. It's non-toxic to the environment and I imagine any that wash into water ways will cause an explosion of the fish population because of the nutrients. With that said, soil is not a problem. Human waste can be recycled by either incinerating or recycling. With fusion reactors scheduled to go into operation within the next forty years, power is not a problem but the mirrors can still double as solar panels. In case of emergency, the panels can close to protect the 'glass' from debris or anything that can smash right through it.
Emergency shelters and life pods are a MUST in case the worst comes to worst. When completed, 500,000 to a million people pending on size can move to this colony and multiple can be built. As long as we avoid slamming one or two or three into earth, all can be well.
I take it you know all about Operation British during the One Year War? :p

Actually, the shielding would be inherent in the structure. The thickness of the metal necessary to hold the structure together is sufficient to prevent against damage from most objects. As far as larger objects, those would be attracted to Earth, itself, and it's unlikely any colony would be in the way. Even if it were, it would be detected at enough range to perform evasive maneuvers. Even the glass would be thick enough to prevent against damage from most meteorite collisions. The structure would almost REQUIRE a grid of several-foot-wide cells of glass, with steel/titanium supports between panels, so any damaged panels could be patched over, pulled out, and replaced, easily, and without major impact.

At the scale of the O'Neill Cylinder, 2 rotations every 3 minutes would generate equivalent to Earth's gravity in centripetal force. This speed is slow enough to prevent much note of the Coriolis effect.

The original design of the O'Neill Cylinder calls for agriculture pods on the large torque wheel at its rear end. (see the first picture) Personally, I find this unnecessary, given the scale, and clustered nature of efficient colonization. Instead, the same space could be occupied by solar panels, and agriculture taken place inside the colony, or, in further future, in entire cylinders devoted to agriculture, and shipped to residential or industrial colonies. Either way, the need for power is alleviated by having the massive array there. The torque wheel, as originally suggested, is large enough in diameter, that even at the mirrors' maximum angle, the solar array would be unimpeded. As yet, however, there is no solar cell reflective enough for the purpose of being a full-time solar mirror, as well as generating power, so, doubling up isn't possible.

Emergency shelters and life pods are inherent concerns, as this IS the deadliest environment. That's a fairly easy concern to take care of.

Through efficient recycling, the colonies can be self-sustaining.
 
In making a moon base, you wouldn't be likely to be removing material from the moon, but moving it around. Even in making orbital colonies from lunar material, you'd have to remove billions of tons of material to have any notable effect on tides. On the planetary scale, everything we do is tiny.

Oh. That makes a lot more sense :p

By spinning colonies, you create artificial gravity. Shielding with time can come cheap with graphine or some new super ceramic material. In my stories, I will go into detail how these colonies like the O'Neill cylinder is built as I see how.
We need new vehicles like the worker pod from 2001: A Space Odyssey or even the Ball Pods from Gundam. With huge sections built in space, each land or glass section is slid into place. After every few sections, a bulkhead can be built or the main bulkhead is built and slid forward with progress of construction and in the vacuum is the terrain, infrastructure and such.
Farmers is some portions of the country are using food waste as fertilizer. It's non-toxic to the environment and I imagine any that wash into water ways will cause an explosion of the fish population because of the nutrients. With that said, soil is not a problem. Human waste can be recycled by either incinerating or recycling. With fusion reactors scheduled to go into operation within the next forty years, power is not a problem but the mirrors can still double as solar panels. In case of emergency, the panels can close to protect the 'glass' from debris or anything that can smash right through it.
Emergency shelters and life pods are a MUST in case the worst comes to worst. When completed, 500,000 to a million people pending on size can move to this colony and multiple can be built. As long as we avoid slamming one or two or three into earth, all can be well.

Actually, soil runoff wouldn'r cause an explosion i nthe fish population, but instead an explosion in algae population. It's called eutrophication and is a common issue near farms that use high-nutrients fertiliser. I'm assumign a station of the likes you're talking about probably wouldn't have that problem (there shouldn't ba any algae unless it's purposely placed there). Still, an organism that can fix the nutrients faster will boom, and fish usually aren't the best at extracting nutrients directly from the water.
 
Oh. That makes a lot more sense :p



Actually, soil runoff wouldn'r cause an explosion i nthe fish population, but instead an explosion in algae population. It's called eutrophication and is a common issue near farms that use high-nutrients fertiliser. I'm assumign a station of the likes you're talking about probably wouldn't have that problem (there shouldn't ba any algae unless it's purposely placed there). Still, an organism that can fix the nutrients faster will boom, and fish usually aren't the best at extracting nutrients directly from the water.
And it's doubtful there would be a fish population aboard these colonies. Ideally, there also wouldn't be an algae population. Soil runoff would have to be carefully controlled. It's more likely, in a self-contained environment, the water would be reprocessed, and all nutrients removed and redistributed. The water cycle, itself, is unavoidable, but other processes that water takes care of would likely be taken over by machine processes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top