Orbiting Toroidal Space Colonies

[Pyrotex]

MoontanMan vs. Uncle Al

 

The debate of the century!

 

Pass the popcorn! This is just fantastic!

 

GO AL!! GO MOOMAN!!

[Moontanman]

Remember the crapstorm over Cassini's Pu-238 thermoelectric generators? The world will not tolerate Florida becoming Chernoble, ditto all points downwind. Where do you do the second launch, either way?

 

Nuclear rocket propulsion! HA HA HA! Welcome to 1950. You got clever ways to shield it without adding mass? Nuclear airplanes, nuclear cars, nuclear tricycles! First, we kill all the engineers...

Everybody has something worth dying for. What have you got that is worth living for?

Uncle Al suggests you read a reference before posting it. Have you ever designed a rocket bell? They have different aspect ratios for in-atmosphere and out-of-atmosphere operation.

 

UncleAL, I am very disappointed in you. You obviously didn't read the link at all.:) If you had you would have found the Nuclear Light Bulb rocket is not 1950's technology, it doesn't release any radioactivity in the exhaust and even in the event of total failure of the rocket it would not release but a tiny fraction of what we released with one old style weapons test. Not only that but they would only be launched from sea platforms far away from any land or cities. Read the two links I sent you throughly and then we'll talk;)

[Moontanman]

Make sure you visit this site and read all the pages UncleAl, 1-14. BRUCE BEHRHORST ARTICLE LIST

[Moontanman]

Wow! Is it safe to stick my head out yet? I figured UncleAl would have tried to lop it off by now!

 

There is no doubt establishing the first of these colonies would be difficult and expensive but as the colonies in the "New World" were eventually able to not only support themselves they were able to be a powerful player in the affairs of the world.

 

Eventually building colonies will be similar to the building of cars. The first cars were built by hand one at a time, assembly line production put cars into the price range of nearly everyone. The same will be true for space colonies.

 

At first only governments and groups of governments will be able to build them but eventually smaller groups will be able to do so and then maybe even families will have their own "estates" in space.

 

Toroidal colonies can be stacked one on top of another to make mega cities of urban landscapes and even completely wild areas (at least in appearance).

 

Space colonies will be the start of bigger things maybe even the next step in the evolution of human culture, and the products of the colonies will become ever more important to the Earth and will enable the start of migration to the stars.

 

It might be hundreds or even thousands of years but the stars will be part of our future, if not we have no future.

[freeztar]

It might be hundreds or even thousands of years but the stars will be part of our future, if not we have no future.

 

The closest star, Alpha Centauri, is 41.5x10^12 km (25.8 trillion miles) away. Traveling at 41.5 km/sec would put us there in 1 trillion seconds. That is equivalent to ~32,000 years!

 

Nonetheless, I think extraterrestrial habitation is a good idea/goal for humanity. :rolleyes:

[Moontanman]

The closest star, Alpha Centauri, is 41.5x10^12 km (25.8 trillion miles) away. Traveling at 41.5 km/sec would put us there in 1 trillion seconds. That is equivalent to ~32,000 years!

 

Nonetheless, I think extraterrestrial habitation is a good idea/goal for humanity. :rolleyes:

 

Magnetic sails could be used to propel these colonies to the stars, .1% of the speed of light should get you there in 4,000 years 1% in 400 years. Even if there are no planets there would be orbiting debris and that is all you need to colonize that solar system and then move to another. No need for faster than light or even relativistic travel just slowly going from one star to another. Say the number of stars double every thousand years, in a hundred thousand years it would be a lot of stars!

[Boerseun]

Up to this point, I've only heard the pros of spacecolonies in the asteroid belt.

 

There's a downside, however.

 

The popular notion is to hollow out these big chunks 'o rock, spin them up, and live on the inside in a comfy, almost earthlike, centrifugally-induced gravity.

 

There's a tiny problem with this, however:

 

You're proposing to remove round about 80% of the asteroid's mass through mining.

 

ALL the removed material must be removed somehow, otherwise you won't be able to spin the sucker up. You can't have a "resource" cloud hanging next to your spinning asteroid. It'll simply fly away.

 

Now, if you remove 80% of an asteroid's mass, you change its orbit. See it as a big rock-rocket. The expulsion of mass through your digging venture acts exactly like a big, fat, lazy rocket.

 

But consider this:

 

There are billions upon billions of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter. You pick one, you modify it to make it livable, thousands of pioneers move in, and now you've gone and changed the orbit. You'll have thousands of hectic collisions in your future with big rocks that haven't been mined yet - heavier than you, meaning you'll come off second best. Also, starting up a dodge'm track in the asteroid belt cannot be healthy for Earth in the long run, either.

 

If you wanna start up something in space, I proposed either Mars, or the Jovian moons. Any one of them is big enough not to have their orbits changed to a dangerous level by human activities.

 

Starting your enterprise in a gravity well like I propose above makes the shipping of resources hard, though. But that's the whole point, innit? You go where the resources are? Else we can just mine the resources with robots and be done with it. The whole reason for colonies is to exploit the resources for themselves - so what would it matter if it was in a gravity well?

 

But, in my own opinion, due to the nature of the asteroid belt, my advice would be to stay the hell away. They seem relatively stable now, the last big one to whack Earth was aroun 65 million years ago, doing the dinos in. We shouldn't tamper with them - any proposed "mining" activity will alter the orbit of whatever is being mined with unpredictable results. You might just find a nice nickle-bearing rock and destroy humankind in the process.

[Pyrotex]

Altering the orbit of an asteroid with "unpredictable" results would occur only if you refused to calculate the new orbital parameters with, say, a modest laptop computer. Ejecting the dug-out mass with a "mass-driver" would, in fact, effect even MORE changes in asteroid speed, and permit the residents to move the asteroid where it would endanger no one. There's plenty of space between Mars and the Belt, and between Earth and Mars, for thousands of stable asteroid orbits.

 

But still, no matter how you slice and dice, the big number 1 problem of space colonies will be: RADIATION.

 

There may be a solution on the horizon. I forgot where I read it (maybe here in Hypo), but scientists are experimenting with composite materials containing pockets of super-density. I can imagine huge sheets of graphene quilted together with nanotubes, so that the actual nuclear density exceeds that of Osmium-Iridium. A million such sheets, stacked together would be as thick as a piece of paper, and might ("might!") stop or reflect most radiation.

[Moontanman]

Altering the orbit of an asteroid with "unpredictable" results would occur only if you refused to calculate the new orbital parameters with, say, a modest laptop computer. Ejecting the dug-out mass with a "mass-driver" would, in fact, effect even MORE changes in asteroid speed, and permit the residents to move the asteroid where it would endanger no one. There's plenty of space between Mars and the Belt, and between Earth and Mars, for thousands of stable asteroid orbits.

 

But still, no matter how you slice and dice, the big number 1 problem of space colonies will be: RADIATION.

 

There may be a solution on the horizon. I forgot where I read it (maybe here in Hypo), but scientists are experimenting with composite materials containing pockets of super-density. I can imagine huge sheets of graphene quilted together with nano tubes, so that the actual nuclear density exceeds that of Osmium-Iridium. A million such sheets, stacked together would be as thick as a piece of paper, and might ("might!") stop or reflect most radiation.

 

I am not promoting hollowing out asteroids, I am promoting using the materials in space to construct toroidal rotating space colonies. Radiation will be a problem, special materials (rock foam is one), magnetic fields, charge fields, mass can negate this problem. If the colony is big enough the walls can be thick enough to block radiation. It is a problem but not an insurmountable one. Every one seems to have their own paradigm as to what a space colony is, T-bird thinks it's a tin can, others think of a hollow asteroid, some think of a think fragile metal tube. I think of a robust donut shaped object made of carbon nano tubes and rock and metal foam. Instead of mirrors I would like to see light collected by and transfered by fiber optics so we could eliminate the weak link of mirrors and transparent windows. Some of my ideas have not been identified with space colonies but to me using them is obvious. When you build something like this you have to look outside the box and use disparate technologies if they are the best at getting the job done. I started to post this in the engineering section instead of space. The technology is out there but it's up to us find it and bring it into the fold. Instead of just naming reasons why it can't be done lets hunt for solutions to the problems. Most are already available we just need to bring them together.

[Thunderbird]

Why would we need to do all this? I still do not understand how the cost is jusified by any benifits.

[Pyrotex]

Okay MooMan,

no hollowed out asteroids. It's space colonies. But can we have a conversation about shape / geometry?

 

The best use of materials that maximizes both internal volume and usable "floor-space" (that is, horizontal load-bearing area) is the cylinder, not the toroid.

Both can be spun on their axis to provide centripetal force. Both would use mirrors to reflect sunlight down their spin axis and then outward (from the axis) to illuminate the "floor-space" within.

 

The cylinder has another advantage, in that it can be built in modules, "disks" that can be attached at the back-side of the growing cylinder, much like soldering nickels together to make a cylinder.

 

Both cylinders and toroids can be attached together in pairs in order to cancel out the angular inertia. Angular inertia is inconvenient in space. Set up your colony to point at the Sun from a distance of 1 AU, and 6 months later, it points directly AWAY from the Sun. Major bummer. Building them in linked pairs lets you slowly turn the structure as it revolves about the Sun.

[Moontanman]

Why would we need to do all this? I still do not understand how the cost is jusified by any benifits.

 

No matter how green we are humans will eventually destroy the earth's ecosystems and humans will become extinct. The Earth is finite, the human race is not. the only way the human race and the Earth's ecosystem can survive is for humans to move into space. Any culture that is not advancing is declining, there is no way to maintain a static society. Colonies are a way to obtain natural resources with out destroying the Earth's ecosystems, materials that cannot be made o the earth can be made in space (metal foam is one of the potentially most useful things we could make in space, huge crystals, zero gee bearings, the list is quite long.) To make these things will require people living in space. It would be far too expensive to maintain small factories from the Earth. Finally how can you put a price on the insurance value of not having all your eggs in one basket should a planetary disaster occur? Humans got to where they are by advancing, expanding to the next level, the next level is space. No matter what we do the Earth will become uninhabitable sooner or later. I love the Earth, I want to do all I can to make it a better place but no matter how hard I or everyone else tries it will eventually die. We can either Terra form other planets which will eventually die just like the earth or we can start making small versions of the Earth in the form of space colonies. If we do we will never run out of resources or space and we will have the opportunity to occupy the entire galaxy and leave all the planets to evolve in their own way. Not only will we survive but the genome of the Earth will survive as well. We will take as many animals and plants with us as we can. the more complex we make our artificial ecosystems the better they will be for us. Does any of this make sense to you?

[Moontanman]

Okay MooMan,

no hollowed out asteroids. It's space colonies. But can we have a conversation about shape / geometry?

 

The best use of materials that maximizes both internal volume and usable "floor-space" (that is, horizontal load-bearing area) is the cylinder, not the toroid.

Both can be spun on their axis to provide centripetal force. Both would use mirrors to reflect sunlight down their spin axis and then outward (from the axis) to illuminate the "floor-space" within.

 

The cylinder has another advantage, in that it can be built in modules, "disks" that can be attached at the back-side of the growing cylinder, much like soldering nickels together to make a cylinder.

 

Both cylinders and toroids can be attached together in pairs in order to cancel out the angular inertia. Angular inertia is inconvenient in space. Set up your colony to point at the Sun from a distance of 1 AU, and 6 months later, it points directly AWAY from the Sun. Major bummer. Building them in linked pairs lets you slowly turn the structure as it revolves about the Sun.

 

I agree, toroids make better sense if they are stacked on each other like many bicycle wheels attached at the hub. many moderately sized ones make more sense than one huge toroid, each toroid could be a different ecosystem and or city. If one was holed catastrophically the others would be unharmed and be there to repair the damage and rescue the inhabitants.

[Thunderbird]

No matter how green we are humans will eventually destroy the earth's ecosystems and humans will become extinct. The Earth is finite, the human race is not. the only way the human race and the Earth's ecosystem can survive is for humans to move into space. Any culture that is not advancing is declining, there is no way to maintain a static society. Colonies are a way to obtain natural resources with out destroying the Earth's ecosystems, materials that cannot be made o the earth can be made in space (metal foam is one of the potentially most useful things we could make in space, huge crystals, zero gee bearings, the list is quite long.) To make these things will require people living in space. It would be far too expensive to maintain small factories from the Earth. Finally how can you put a price on the insurance value of not having all your eggs in one basket should a planetary disaster occur? Humans got to where they are by advancing, expanding to the next level, the next level is space. No matter what we do the Earth will become uninhabitable sooner or later. I love the Earth, I want to do all I can to make it a better place but no matter how hard I or everyone else tries it will eventually die. We can either Terra form other planets which will eventually die just like the earth or we can start making small versions of the Earth in the form of space colonies. If we do we will never run out of resources or space and we will have the opportunity to occupy the entire galaxy and leave all the planets to evolve in their own way. Not only will we survive but the genome of the Earth will survive as well. We will take as many animals and plants with us as we can. the more complex we make our artificial ecosystems the better they will be for us. Does any of this make sense to you?

No.

If any of this was a viable natural evolutionary stage, from a terrestrial existence to life migrating across the galaxy, it would be obvious by now. For one thing this perfect little sphere of ours would have been snapped up long ago as prime beach front property. Since it wasn't, and since we appear to be alone in our solar system. [i do not see a space high way near by] It appeared all the neighbors know a bit more than we do on the best way to survive and evolve. Namely its not about moving because you've dirtied your house, but to get your house in order.

[Moontanman]

No.

If any of this was a viable natural evolutionary stage, from a terrestrial existence to life migrating across the galaxy, it would be obvious by now. For one thing this perfect little sphere of ours would have been snapped up long ago as prime beach front property. Since it wasn't, and since we appear to be alone in our solar system. [i do not see a space high way near by] It appeared all the neighbors know a bit more than we do on the best way to survive and evolve. Namely its not about moving because you've dirtied your house, but to get your house in order.

 

T-Bird why do you ignore my points and try to make it seem like i am making others? Do you really think that because the Earth hasn't been occupied by aliens it means they are all staying on their home worlds going down with the ship?

 

Colonizing another planet is problematical at best, even if the local ecosystem didn't poison you outright it's unlikely you could live on any plants or animals that lived there. Disease and allergens would probably keep you from exactly living the good life if the local life forms were compatible. Then you have the moral problem of interfering with another ecosystem. Leaving these things aside I'll say it again, the ecosystem of the Earth is DOOMED! The Earth will only become less and less inhabitable as time goes on, even if we aren't here this will be true. Our presence only hurries the process along. then you have the possibility of a planetary disaster, a major asteroid strike will happen, planetary scale volcanic eruptions (super volcanoes, major lava eruptions IE the Siberian traps) or even man made catastrophes like global warming will eventually wipe out or make the continued existence of the human race unlikely to say the least. If nothing else space colonies would be like an insurance policy against those things. Just because no one has showed up to take the Earth away from us doesn't mean space colonization isn't the next step (not inevitable, we could just die out) we need to take. Space colonies are just the next intelligent step. It is very possible we are the only civilization in the milky way galaxy or at least the only one for thousands of light years. We cannot help but dirty our nest, we cannot clean it up enough to keep it from being dirty. The are simply way too many people and mandatory birth control is OK for all those other people but not for us, unfortunately there are no other people, everyone is part of the problem. Setting our house right is at best a temporary solution, we still need to pursue that course but ultimately we will just be fighting a loosing battle. Do you really want to live on a world where all the animal life has been killed off by habitat destruction and all you have is hordes of people living in squalor? Or do you want to kill off 90% of humanity so the ecosystem can limp along a little longer? Give me a really viable alternative that will allow humans to live a life worth living on the Earth forever. There isn't one, even the sun will not cooperate, it will extinguish life on the Earth eventually if we can avoid all the short term disasters.

[Pyrotex]

Hmmm... perhaps we should narrow our focus to that class of global disasters that we are likely to face in the next 100 to 200 years. I vote we exclude the Sun going nova.

[Moontanman]

Hmmm... perhaps we should narrow our focus to that class of global disasters that we are likely to face in the next 100 to 200 years. I vote we exclude the Sun going nova.

 

Well Nova wasn't what I had in mind but plenty of other problems will have the opportunity to get us way before the sun expands to the point we can't survive. The real point is to exploit the resources available in space and to expand the human race beyond the earth. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years before we move to the next star but it's never too soon to start things moving in that direction. I wouldn't be surprised if in the process of developing the technologies necessary to make the move into space we discover things to help us out on the Earth. Aneutronic fusion is one really big possibility that cannot be ignored. Aneutronic fuel is common in the regolith of airless space bodies but rare on the Earth. We don't know what we will accomplish with we are trying to accomplish space development. Insurance is always a good thing when you need it.