PDA

View Full Version : Stanford torus or equivelent space city



neilzero
2013-Mar-12, 09:48 PM
Ara Pacis, speaking of the Stanford Toros said "we have the technology, only the will is lacking". It did not seem appropriate to analyze in depth, in the thread, about the meteor that exploded over Russia Feb 15, 2013. Others have made similar statements about mega projects.
Let's assume congress makes a firm commitment to spend one billion dollars in 2014, and adds 10% each year = 1,100,000,000 in 2015 for the next century, how many humans live in space in 2099 and what are the details of how? Clearly we should not cut metal for the city in 2014, a radical variation on the Stanford Torus may be the best approach. Possibly, we can cut metal for a demonstration nudge asteroid or comet space craft for solar orbit in 2014. Effective nudging methods will require heavy lift and/or extensive assembly in space, so let's do both (shot gun approach.) Pre-need refining and stock piling materials on the practice nudged asteroids seems prudent as bringing everything from Earth will deplete Earth resources, if we do off Earth cities large scale. Possibly the first permanent off planet humans will live near the mass center of one of these small asteroids. This provides excellent radiation protection, but zero gravity; perhaps as soon as 2040. The next big step is huge = getting the materials organized in the inner solar system so we start construction of several off Earth villages. Again, shot gun approach otherwise it takes too long to reject ten poor methods to find the best method. Please suggest some alternatives and intermediate steps to follow the first tiny colony at the mass center of an asteroid. Surely we can do better than just scaling up another ISS = international space station with minor improvements. Neil

Noclevername
2013-Mar-12, 10:37 PM
Just a quick nitpick: "can build it with today's technology" doesn't mean "can start it right away". Obviously it would take a long time to build the tools to build the tools-- a space mining, industrial and construction infrastructure for even small habitats would be years away even if we began them now and dedicated all efforts towards it; there would not be metal to cut until that metal was first collected and refined.

But if there were no further advances in technology, just refinements of what we've already invented, I think a working space infrastructure and a fully functional Stanford Torus could be built. Obviously both of these things would/will benefit from any actual advances that do occur, and we'll learn more aboput how to do things in space by actually doing things in space. But the foundations are metaphorically already there; O'Neill and his students knew what they were doing, engineering-wise.

These general statements apply to just about any megaproject, that's why they're Mega.

ravens_cry
2013-Mar-14, 03:28 PM
I wish we would start at least. The money is there, but it's been used for other things.

Noclevername
2013-Mar-14, 05:33 PM
As far as hollowing out an asteroid goes, since most of them are rubble piles it would be much easier to scoop surface materials into bags and wrap them around a space station, than to dig out and reinforce a hole in the middle, wrangle all your building materials and machines through a tunnel, and construct a station inside. Building inside a solid asteroid might be more or less of an effort thasn a rubble heap, depending on how zero-G construction methods develop, but it will still not be as simple as building a habitat in open spce and then covering it with a shell of material.

neilzero
2013-Mar-15, 02:25 AM
Why do we think even 10% of the 10 meter to 1000 meter asteroids are rubble piles? It seems to me that half the rubble would scatter with even a tiny impactor as the shock waves propagated though the near zero gravity holding the gravel together. What happens on Earth's surface when a stick of dynamite explodes at the bottom center of one ton of gravel? Neil

ASTRO BOY
2013-Mar-15, 03:11 AM
These general statements apply to just about any megaproject, that's why they're Mega.


Let's thank the dear Lord, that we seem to always have certain people/companies/orginizations that are willing to give these big projects a go.......whether it be re-establishing ourselves on the Moon, Mining and/or exploring Asteroids, sending men to Mars, or even talking and thinking about stellar travel.
Some see difficulties, problems and dangers, and throw their hands up in despair....Others see it as a challenge to overcome like Marc Millis.
I dips me lid to these folk.

An example from a Marc Millis video.......

http://www.tauzero.aero/news

Noclevername
2013-Mar-15, 06:41 AM
Why do we think even 10% of the 10 meter to 1000 meter asteroids are rubble piles? It seems to me that half the rubble would scatter with even a tiny impactor as the shock waves propagated though the near zero gravity holding the gravel together. What happens on Earth's surface when a stick of dynamite explodes at the bottom center of one ton of gravel? Neil

As I understand it, the main reason is that larger asteroids have generally had billions of years to gather dust and debris knocked off asteroids. To use your own comparisonn, some of the gravel that gets knocked out of the pit, eventually falls back in or falls into another pit. Smaller ones lack the gravity to do any compacting and simply remain the dustballs they were when the Solar system was first forming out of a dust cloud.