# Thread: Space colonization, in general

1. ## Space colonization, in general

A light transfer solution for cylindrical space colonies

Janhunen, Pekka
06/2018

Cylindrical kilometre-scale artificial gravity space colonies were proposed by Gerard O'Neill in the 1970s. The early concept had two oppositely rotating cylinders and moving mirrors to simulate the diurnal cycle. Later, the Kalpana One concept exhibited passively stable rotation and no large moving parts. Here we propose and analyse a specific light transfer solution for Kalpana One type colonies. The scheme has an array of cylindrical paraboloid concentrators in the outer wall and semi-toroidal reflectors at the equator which distribute the concentrated sunlight onto the living surface. The living cylinder is divided into a number of $\varphi$-sections (valleys) that are in different phases of the diurnal and seasonal cycles. To reduce the mass of nitrogen needed, a shallow atmosphere is used which is contained by a pressure-tight transparent roof. The only moving parts needed are local blinders installed below the roof of each valley. We also find that colonies of this class have a natural location at the equator where one can build multi-storey urban blocks. The location is optimal from the mass distribution (rotational stability) point of view. If maximally built, the amount of urban floorspace per person becomes large, up to 25,000 m$^2$, which is an order of magnitude larger than the food-producing rural biosphere area per person. Large urban floorspace area per person may increase the material standard of living much beyond Earth while increasing the total mass per person relatively little.

========================================

A concept of biopharmaceutical nanosatellite

02/2018

The article is a short overview of a proposal of a CubeSat type nanosatellite designed to conduct biopharmaceutical tests on the low earth orbit. Motivations behind the emerging demand for such solution nowadays and in the close future are emphasized. The possible objectives and challenges to be addressed in the planned biopharmaceutical CubeSat missions are discussed. In particular, it is hard to imagine progress of the space tourism and colonization of Mars without a wide-ranging development of pharmaceutics dedicated to be used in space. Finally, an exemplary layout of a 3U type CubeSat is presented. We stress that, thanks to recent development in both nanosatellite technologies and lab-on-a-chip type biofluidic systems the proposed idea becomes now both feasible and relatively affordable.

=======================================

Materials and design concepts for space-resilient structures

Naser, Mohannad Z.; Chehab, Alaa I.
04/2018

Space exploration and terraforming nearby planets have been fascinating concepts for the longest time. Nowadays, that technological advancements with regard to space exploration are thriving, it is only a matter of time before humans can start colonizing nearby moons and planets. This paper presents a state-of-the-art literature review on recent developments of "space-native" construction materials, and highlights evolutionary design concepts for "space-resilient" structures (i.e., colonies and habitats). This paper also details effects of harsh (and unique) space environments on various terrestrial and extraterrestrial construction materials, as well as on space infrastructure and structural systems. The feasibility of exploiting available space resources in terms of "in-situ resource utilization" and "harvesting of elements and compounds", as well as emergence of enabling technologies such as "cultured (lab-grown)" space construction materials are discussed. Towards the end of the present review, number of limitations and challenges facing Lunar and Martian exploration, and venues in-need for urgent research are identified and examined.

======================================

Application of virtual reality for crew mental health in extended-duration space missions

Salamon, Nick; Grimm, Jonathan M.; Horack, John M.; Newton, Elizabeth K.
05/2018

Human exploration of the solar system brings a host of environmental and engineering challenges. Among the most important factors in crew health and human performance is the preservation of mental health. The mental well-being of astronaut crews is a significant issue affecting the success of long-duration space missions, such as habitation on or around the Moon, Mars exploration, and eventual colonization of the solar system. If mental health is not properly addressed, these missions will be at risk. Upkeep of mental health will be especially difficult on long duration missions because many of the support systems available to crews on shorter missions will not be available. In this paper, we examine the use of immersive virtual reality (VR) simulations to maintain healthy mental states in astronaut crews who are removed from the essential comforts typically associated with terrestrial life. Various methods of simulations and their administration are analyzed in the context of current research and knowledge in the fields of psychology, medicine, and space sciences, with a specific focus on the environment faced by astronauts on long-term missions. The results of this investigation show that virtual reality should be considered a plausible measure in preventing mental state deterioration in astronauts, though more work is needed to provide a comprehensive view of the effectiveness and administration of VR methods.

======================================

Population Growth, Energy Use, and the Implications for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Mullan, Brendan; Haqq-Misra, Jacob
06/2018

Von Hoerner (1975) examined the effects of human population growth and predicted agricultural, environmental, and other problems from observed growth rate trends. Using straightforward calculations, VH75 predicted the "doomsday" years for these scenarios (2020-2050), when we as a species should run out of space or food, or induce catastrophic anthropogenic climate change through thermodynamically unavoidable direct heating of the planet. Now that over four decades have passed, in this paper we update VH75. We perform similar calculations as that work, with improved data and trends in population growth, food production, energy use, and climate change. For many of the impacts noted in VH75 our work amounts to pushing the "doomsday" horizon back to the 2300s-2400s (or much further for population-driven interstellar colonization). This is largely attributable to using worldwide data that exhibit smaller growth rates of population and energy use in the last few decades. While population-related catastrophes appear less likely than in VH75, our continued growth in energy use provides insight into possible future issues. We find that, if historic trends continue, direct heating of the Earth will be a substantial contributor to climate change by about 2260, regardless of the energy source used, coincident with our transition to a Kardashev type-I civilization. We also determine that either an increase of Earth's global mean temperature of 12K will occur or an unreasonably high fraction of the planet will need to be covered by solar collectors by about 2400 to keep pace with our growth in energy use. We further discuss the implications in terms of interstellar expansion, the transition to type II and III civilizations, SETI, and the Fermi Paradox. We conclude that the "sustainability solution" to the Fermi Paradox is a compelling possibility.

2. Space changes you far more than you might know. For instance, your brain...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...tronauts-body/

Cosmonaut brains show space travel causes lasting changes
A new study of Russian space travelers adds to evidence that life among the stars has many consequences.

By Maya Wei-Haas, PUBLISHED October 25, 2018

Our fleshy forms evolved to work within the tug of gravity. Take that pull away, and the clockwork operation of bodily functions just doesn't keep ticking at the same steady beat. From fluids floating the wrong way to DNA expressing differently, space travel is tough on even the healthiest human body. Now, a study of recently active cosmonauts adds to the concern for one particularly vital organ: the brain. The results suggest that deformations to brain tissue caused by weightless conditions can linger even after space travelers have had their boots back on Earth for seven months.

3. Again emphasizing the importance of developing a craft with spin. A non-trivial task.

4. Infrastructure is what keeps rockets flying.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellista.../#6fc26fe91318

To Commercialize Space We Need To Build Infrastructure, Not Just Launch Rockets
Ellis Talton and Remington Tonar | Dec 10, 2018, 08:00am

Rockets are big, powerful and dramatic. They stand hundreds of feet high and are catapulted into orbit by millions of pounds of thrust at nearly 25,000 miles per hour. As they ascend, they leave behind long, glowing contrails that mark their path to the stars and mystify the earthbound onlookers they’ve left behind. It’s these amazing technologies and the growing number of for-profit companies behind them that are driving the conversation around the new space race. Yet, as private sector rocket manufacturers like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital ATK and United Launch Alliance build excitement around their efforts to commercialize space, it’s easy to lose sight of the dozens of companies working to build the infrastructure that will make commercialization possible and sustainable. Space is a hazardous place, and while rockets are necessary to reach it, they do little to enable people to live safely and work productively while there. That responsibility is increasingly falling to a small but growing set of companies that are building the infrastructure for life in space. Beyond NASA’s ongoing efforts, startups of varying degrees of funding are emerging to provide things like life support systems, crew habitats, device connectivity, satellite traffic management and food solutions. While smaller and perhaps less glamorous, these types of technologies are crucial to space commercialization efforts.

5. Here's a controversial paper. It states that some of the Solar System should not be colonized or mined, perhaps not even explored much (if I understand it). Comments?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13681

How much of the Solar System should we leave as Wilderness?

Martin Elvis, Tony Milligan (Submitted on 24 May 2019)

"How much of the Solar System should we reserve as wilderness, off-limits to human development?" We argue that, as a matter of policy, development should be limited to one eighth, with the remainder set aside. We argue that adopting a "1/8 principle" is far less restrictive, overall, than it might seem. One eighth of the iron in the asteroid belt is more than a million times greater than all of the Earth's estimated iron reserves and may suffice for centuries. A limit of some sort is needed because of the problems associated with exponential growth. Humans are poor at estimating the pace of such growth, so the limitations of a resource are hard to recognize before the final three doubling times which take utilization successively from 1/8 to 1/4 to 1/2, and then to the point of exhaustion. Population growth and climate change are instances of unchecked exponential growth. Each places strains upon ouru available resources. Each is a problem we would like to control but attempts to do so at this comparatively late stage have not been encouraging. Our limited ability to see ahead suggests that we should set ourselves a 'tripwire' that gives us at least 3 doubling times as leeway, i.e. when 1/8 of Solar System resources are close to being exploited. At a 3.5 percent growth rate for the space economy, comparable to that of the iron use from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until now, the 1/8 point would be reached after 400 years. At that point the 20 year doubling time of a 3.5 percent growth rate means that only 60 years would remain to transition the economic system to new "steady state" conditions. The rationale for adopting the 1/8 principle now is that it may be far easier to implement in principle restrictions at an early stage, rather than later, when vested and competing interests have come into existence.

6. Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore
Here's a controversial paper. It states that some of the Solar System should not be colonized or mined, perhaps not even explored much (if I understand it). Comments?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13681

How much of the Solar System should we leave as Wilderness?

Martin Elvis, Tony Milligan (Submitted on 24 May 2019)

"How much of the Solar System should we reserve as wilderness, off-limits to human development?" We argue that, as a matter of policy, development should be limited to one eighth, with the remainder set aside. We argue that adopting a "1/8 principle" is far less restrictive, overall, than it might seem. One eighth of the iron in the asteroid belt is more than a million times greater than all of the Earth's estimated iron reserves and may suffice for centuries. A limit of some sort is needed because of the problems associated with exponential growth. Humans are poor at estimating the pace of such growth, so the limitations of a resource are hard to recognize before the final three doubling times which take utilization successively from 1/8 to 1/4 to 1/2, and then to the point of exhaustion. Population growth and climate change are instances of unchecked exponential growth. Each places strains upon ouru available resources. Each is a problem we would like to control but attempts to do so at this comparatively late stage have not been encouraging. Our limited ability to see ahead suggests that we should set ourselves a 'tripwire' that gives us at least 3 doubling times as leeway, i.e. when 1/8 of Solar System resources are close to being exploited. At a 3.5 percent growth rate for the space economy, comparable to that of the iron use from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until now, the 1/8 point would be reached after 400 years. At that point the 20 year doubling time of a 3.5 percent growth rate means that only 60 years would remain to transition the economic system to new "steady state" conditions. The rationale for adopting the 1/8 principle now is that it may be far easier to implement in principle restrictions at an early stage, rather than later, when vested and competing interests have come into existence.
It's a nice idea, but in practice, it's not going to be enforceable. Once you have a large population established in space, they'll make their own rules and priorities.

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
11,383
The tyranny of the rocket equation is a more severe than any regulation.

Get anti-gravity (as if) THEN it's unenforcable.

8. Originally Posted by publiusr
The tyranny of the rocket equation is a more severe than any regulation.

Get anti-gravity (as if) THEN it's unenforcable.

ADDED: Are you just meaning Earth launches? Because I'm talking about a space based population.

9. And for that matter, enforcing it on a multi-nation Earth would be very difficult.

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
11,383
I think some folks just want us back in the caves.

11. Originally Posted by publiusr
I think some folks just want us back in the caves.
1/8th of the Solar System's resources is hardly "back in the caves".

12. Originally Posted by Noclevername
1/8th of the Solar System's resources is hardly "back in the caves".
Yes, that's true. Another point I'd make is that this "proposal" seems a bit premature. It's going to be a looooong time before we get anywhere near to colonizing one eighth of the solar system! And by the time that comes around, who knows what our civilization will be like anyway. Maybe we'll be living in a virtual world and won't even need to go to colonies with bodies.

13. We've already colonized 1/8 of the planets....

14. Originally Posted by Noclevername
We've already colonized 1/8 of the planets....
Yes, but unfortunately our dingy planet doesn't make up quite 1/8 of the solar system.

15. Originally Posted by Jens
Yes, but unfortunately our dingy planet doesn't make up quite 1/8 of the solar system.
But it has all the best real estate. Location, location, location!

16. Originally Posted by Jens
Yes, but unfortunately our dingy planet doesn't make up quite 1/8 of the solar system.
Well, by mass the bulk of the Solar System is a G5V star.

On the other hand, 100% of the habitable volume is on one planet.

17. Originally Posted by swampyankee
On the other hand, 100% of the habitable volume is on one planet.
At present.

18. Originally Posted by swampyankee
Well, by mass the bulk of the Solar System is a G5V star.

On the other hand, 100% of the habitable volume is on one planet.
Actually, being serious, it seems that the proposal is to put aside 7/8 of the "solid bodies" in the solar system. So I think what they mean is the rocky planets and asteroids.

19. Leaving part of the Solar System as "wilderness" is a dumb idea. It makes no realistic/ practical sense. It's not like designating a national forest or ocean park, which is understandable, but 99.9999999999% of humanity isn't going to Saturn to admire its rings.

Set aside the places we landed on the Moon and Mars, the important points in our history, and move on. An ice mine on Ceres isn't going to ruin it.

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
11,383
Agreed. Frankly, I'd love to see all the rocks dust, etc. cleaned up and put to good use.

21. Originally Posted by Jens
Actually, being serious, it seems that the proposal is to put aside 7/8 of the "solid bodies" in the solar system. So I think what they mean is the rocky planets and asteroids.
Put aside for what? I still don't get that. Life, sure, if we find life I can understand leaving that. But dead stuff? It's already dead stuff.

22. Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore
Infrastructure is what keeps rockets flying.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellista.../#6fc26fe91318

To Commercialize Space We Need To Build Infrastructure, Not Just Launch Rockets
Ellis Talton and Remington Tonar | Dec 10, 2018, 08:00am

Rockets are big, powerful and dramatic. They stand hundreds of feet high and are catapulted into orbit by millions of pounds of thrust at nearly 25,000 miles per hour. As they ascend, they leave behind long, glowing contrails that mark their path to the stars and mystify the earthbound onlookers they’ve left behind. It’s these amazing technologies and the growing number of for-profit companies behind them that are driving the conversation around the new space race. Yet, as private sector rocket manufacturers like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital ATK and United Launch Alliance build excitement around their efforts to commercialize space, it’s easy to lose sight of the dozens of companies working to build the infrastructure that will make commercialization possible and sustainable. Space is a hazardous place, and while rockets are necessary to reach it, they do little to enable people to live safely and work productively while there. That responsibility is increasingly falling to a small but growing set of companies that are building the infrastructure for life in space. Beyond NASA’s ongoing efforts, startups of varying degrees of funding are emerging to provide things like life support systems, crew habitats, device connectivity, satellite traffic management and food solutions. While smaller and perhaps less glamorous, these types of technologies are crucial to space commercialization efforts.
Yes

We need to hunker down and do the boring work, not just let billionaires brag about the size of their thrusters. A thousand things need to be considered beyond just getting there, if we want anyone to stay there.
Last edited by Noclevername; 2019-Jun-07 at 09:16 PM.

23. Originally Posted by Noclevername
Put aside for what? I still don't get that. Life, sure, if we find life I can understand leaving that. But dead stuff? It's already dead stuff.
Actually, I completely agree. I wasn’t intending to agree with the article, just to clarify what they were saying.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

24. Originally Posted by Jens
Actually, I completely agree. I wasn’t intending to agree with the article, just to clarify what they were saying.
Understood.

I wouldn't know what to say to you if you did agree. Except "Why?"

25. Originally Posted by Noclevername
A thousand things need to be considered beyond just getting there, if we want anyone to stay there.
Spin to compensate for microgravity.
Resource extraction in space, especially building materials and volatiles.
Full lines of industrial equipment to process raw materials into finished products.
Reliable life support, food supply, and waste disposal, via a closed cycle ecological system.
Reliable power, light, heat, water purification cycle, air circulation, internal and external communication, and other technological support systems.
Fabrication and recycling of clothing, writing materials, hygiene materials, plastics, electronics, and many other everyday items.
Capacity to repair and replace necessary components of all vital systems and structures with minimal or no Earth products.
A community psychologically suited and trained to live and work together and maintain all the necessary systems and relationships to sustain their habitat.
Software to facilitate all of the above.
Whatever I'm leaving out.

And of course, none if this will be possible without lots and lots of highly skilled personnel, preferably after they've gained experience building and supporting less permanent habitats in space.

26. A useful discovery? Could this create protective magnetic fields around robotic or crewed spacecraft? Don't know yet.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-nation...tic-field.html

National MagLab creates world-record magnetic field with small, compact coil
by Kristen Coyne, Florida State University

QUOTE: The miniature magnet created by Hahn and his team generated a world-record 45.5 tesla magnetic field. A typical hospital MRI magnet is about 2 or 3 teslas, and the strongest, continuous-field magnet in the world is the MagLab's own 45-tesla hybrid instrument, a 35-ton behemoth that has maintained that record since 1999. The 45-T, as it is called, is still the world's strongest working magnet, enabling cutting-edge physics research into materials. But in a test, the half-pint-sized magnet invented by Hahn, tipping the scales at 390 grams (0.86 pounds), briefly surpassed the reigning champ's field by half a tesla, a compelling proof of concept.

27. Apparently China has already figured out how to colonize the Milky Way galaxy. See below.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-galactic-settlement.html

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...y-Star-by-Star
Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2019-Jun-26 at 11:54 PM.