I’ve noticed that Columbus Day is not as…celebrated… these days as when I was a kid, when it was pretty much an unalloyed paen to the great explorer and navigator who thought that the planet was a lot smaller than it was, bumped into a convenient continent in between Spain and Asia (had it not been there, the expedition would have been lost, or the crew mutinied and return home, long before they arrived at the real Spice Islands). Fortunately for him, the power of self delusion is great, and he seems to have gone to his deathbed thinking that he found a new route to the Orient, albeit one that bore no obvious resemblance to the one being traded with previously, other than full of heathens.
Anyway, the holiday seems to arouse much more protest today than in the sixties, at least among the politically correct and bien pensant, many of whom think that colonizing and industrializing the continent was the worst thing to happen to not only the people who had already been living here (and despite Rousseau’s toxic delusions about savage nobility, pillaging and making war amongst themselves, torturing and human sacrificing, and slaughtering the fauna who had beaten them here), but the entire planet.
I’m somewhere in the middle, but more old school than new. Certainly the place could have done with a lot less slavery and gold digging in the name of the Lord, and it would be a happier, or at least more productive place had both the north and south been Anglicized, rather than feudalized by Spain and Portugal, but overall I think that we’ve been better stewards than the first plunderers were, having gained a lot more scientific (as opposed to faux spiritual) knowledge and developed technologies to make things more to everyone’s liking, for all their cavilling. I don’t, after all, see the natives doing much of that return-to-the-earth stuff — they find casinos much more lucrative. That seems to have been left to their worshipers in communes and academia, who seem to worship them even when they are fake but accurate. And it’s tragic that so many died from simple contamination by diseases to which they had no immunity (though not deliberately for the most part, despite that particular mythology), but this is another area in which we may learn from the past, and at least try to minimize such future events.
Which gets me to my real point.
In reading some of the comments over at Pop Mechanics today, I was struck (on this day) by how many in the space advocacy (and non-advocacy) community continue to use the opening of the New World as an analogy for where we are today, or are going, in space. For instance, Jeff Greason:
I think Mars is a very obvious place for settlement to happen. It is the place we have that is closest to us and looks like the most prominent candidate for a self-sustained human presence. Why would anyone want to go there? I want to go! There are lots of people out there who want to go. Wind that question back 400 years. Why would anyone want to go this great howling wilderness in North America? When the pilgrims got here, they wrote about what inhospitable place it was, with no inns to refresh one’s spirits, nothing but howling wilderness. The first three attempts to make a permanent place in the Los Angeles area ended in death. Even now, you have to pipe in water to survive. We had to master fire to get out of Africa, and agriculture to get to a lot of places. The American West had to be subjected to massive civil engineering works before more than a small community of pioneers could live there. What you consider to be habitable is a function of your level of technology.”
This is an argument that I (and countless others) have made in the past. And then we have the inevitable Bob Park:
When we established colonies [on Earth], we did it for very specific reasons. To rape the resources and bring them home. There aren’t any resources on Mars, not that we know of. There’s nothing to go there to get. If there were diamonds a feet deep on Mars, it still wouldn’t be worth the cost of sending people there. We’re already doing a great job with unmanned explorers.
That last, of course, always begs the question of what “the job” is.
So is it a good analogy or not? Yes, in some ways, no in others. As Scott Pace notes, our future in space depends on two critical issues, and one can build a quadrant table from them:
| Can Live Off The Land | Can’t Live Off The Land | |
| Economic Benefits | Space Settlements | Oil Rigs |
| No Economic Benefits | Antarctica | Nothing Much In Space |
| Can Live Off The Land | Can’t Live Off The Land | |
| Economic/Spiritual Benefits | Space Settlements | Oil Rigs |
| No Economic/Spiritual Benefits | Massachussets/Salt Lake City | Nothing Much In Space |
Why does the “spiritual imperative” have to be religious? I can see a lot of libertarians and conservatives wanting to get away from the bureaucratic governments of Mother Earth to live as they would like at a space settlement.
Why does the “spiritual imperative” have to be religious?
It doesn’t have to be, in a theological sense. I agree that one of the motivators will be seeking freedom in general, and not just religious freedom.
Yes Columbus is getting unfairly dissed – large ly by the politicallycorrect whofeel the modern western/American world is bad.
Hopefully this is a passing historical fad?
As to space colonies, or American colonies, most of the non-economical ones failed. There were hordes of Utopian and/or religious ones founded across the US as it formed. Few survived the founders grandchildren if they didn’t find a strong economic footing. So I think still as far as space is concerned you need a sold market based solution, and the idea that we’ll do it for the glory ain’t going to work.
One caveat. I’ve heard a couple groups suggest major religions like Catholics or something might choose to found monistaries for seclusion, and to give future colonies a starting point. See anything suggesting actual religious leaders might be thinking this way?
I guess a problem is there are so many easier to settle isolated spots on Earth – why go to space?
Comments on both points:
I suspect that Columbus validated the primary point of his real theory — that there was a continental landmass at approximately thirty day’s sail west of the Canaries. He theorized correctly that this was the case because he was the first person to correctly intuit the Atlantic wind system, understanding that there was a set of circular wind patterns in the North and South Atlantic, which in turn suggested a continental-scale landmass at he western boundary of his pattern. He assumed this was Asia since there was at least a theoretical combination of estimates of global circumference and length of the Eurasian landmass that permitted this answer. Given his knowledge state, Occam’s Razor dictated that answer. This theory was the key to his success — previous expeditions west had departed from the Azores, being the farthest-west known inhabited land. But Columbus realized that the circulation of winds made that a bad departure point, given that ships of his day were very bad at sailing into the wind. The Canaries, although further east, were rightly positioned to find a good wind for the West. And Columbus, who had sailed from the latitude of the Canaries to the latitude of Iceland in his career (a far wider range than usual), and was familiar with all prior literature relevant to the matter, was probably the first European to have been in a position to notice this.
Regarding the colonization question — Scott’s analytical framework makes sense. I fill the squares slightly differently. Any location, on planet or off, will probably be inhabited when the cost acquiring and living in a given habitable volume equal that of any significant population center on Earth. So long as electronic communication is possible, people can now make living. And space locations will have one economic advantage that no earthly location can enjoy – the prospect of sovereignty. The Earth is now entirely carved up, and no new sovereignty will be permitted to emerge, except by secession, which has its own problems. Even seceding states will only be recognized when it is convenient for existing states to do so. Sovereignty will be valued for many different reasons; transcendental values (religions, ideologies, etc.) will value it earlier than others. So that square will be filled earlier than pure economics suggests it will.
Locations do not have to be entirely self-sufficient to be economically viable. They merely need to be viable through a combination of trade and use of local resources. Massachusetts Bay and Salt Lake wouldn’t have been founded for purely economic reasons as early as they were, but they both had substantial assets (fish and timber, and water and irrigable land, respectively) to get to viability fairly early.
Two points on this post:
First, the table you quote is not original with Scott (as he would readily attest) — it’s from Harry Shipman’s Humans in Space: 21st Century Frontiers, Plenum Press, New York, 351 pp., 1989. And that book is a resource to O’Neillians everywhere.
Second, There is a “spiritual,” (or more precisely) a religious element to modern space exploration. We call it “science.” Neil Tyson and I toss this idea around here:
Of Science and Cathedral Building
A very thoughtful and interesting post, Rand.
I agree with Mark. I think the economic arguments are overdone, and ultimately implausible. In the end, the most useful planet to Earth dwellers is Earth itself, and there is nothing we are used to wanting down here that will ever be worth the cost to ship from one gravity well to another. It will always be cheaper to find it down here, or recycle it.
But I would not underestimate the important of liberty and opportunity to people. I also think that is the more appropriate historical model. To be sure, there were people in the Old World who hoped to get rich exploiting the New, but that mostly did not happen. To the extent the New World provided wealth, it provided it for those who moved there, and it was used to sustain them. That is, the natural wealth of the New World did not make the Old World wealthy so much as it changed the fortunes from poor to comfortable of those who moved from the Old to the New World. (No, I do not make an exception for Spain; the silver shipped from the New World did not enrich Spain, it impoverished Spain, much as the unearned wealth of oil has impoverished the Middle East, Venezuela.)
But let us not underestimate the fact that most people moved here for liberty and opportunity; the freedom to get away from the highly organized, stratified communities at home, where the State reached deeply into each citizen’s life (for the good of society as a whole of course), and where each citizen’s economic position was far less amenable to change.
Those conditions seem eerily familiar, do they not? Indeed, there seems to be some weird sickness in men, in that as we become wealthy and comfortable, we start to demand conformity and adherence to dogma, and individual liberty declines. Mediocrity becomes triumphant through sheer cussedness and power of numbers, and the best and brightest begin to despair — and look for emigration opportunities. It happened to Imperial Rome, it happened to the European hegemony, and it would happen to the American hegemony, except, as of right now, there is simply no where to go.
If that changes — if there is a frontier, a place to go that, no matter how hard the living, a man can be freer than he is here, and has a better opportunity to become something, without the depressing conforming option of 25 years of education and apprenticeships, then working his way up some government/corporate anthill — then I can foresee a lot of people wanting to go.
At least the oil rigs model will come about later, if not sooner, IF we care about our environment ( I guess we can toss environmentalism into spiritual benefits can here as well )
The mainstream environmentalism here has never gotten on the clue train about this, but i would guess if the message eventually gets through, they should be THRILLED about the concept of moving most of terrestrial mining industry into the main belt.
And if that does not win them over, theres also the fact that current geographically uneven distribution of strategic resources can be somewhat alleviated, thus reducing the tensions.
“It will always be cheaper to find it down here, or recycle it.”
Only in idealistic, global economy world, where everything is traded fairly. This is not the case. The fact is, that interesting resources remain concentrated in few spots on earth, and im not talking oil, but things like PGMs, rare earth metals, even lithium.
It is not necessary for there to be a direct Earth tradable economic commodity in space for it to be economically attractive. If living in space was better/cheaper than on Earth, then people would emigrate, as Earth history infers.
There is a very strong correlation between energy use per capita and standard of living. Energy use per capita has serious limits on Earth, not so in space.
For example, farming cylinders a few meters in diameter in space could be easily automated and incredibly productive with yields perhaps an order of magnitude higher than on farmland on Earth – and available farmland is far less limited. Much higher energy availability, boosted CO2 levels, naturally quarantined against diseases and pests, etc. Food should eventually be much cheaper in space, though it would probably need to be consumed there due to high transport costs.
A good climate for living in should be much cheaper in space – energy is cheap. Habitable living space should eventually be much cheaper in space. Large engineering works will be much cheaper. Cloud computing might be cheaper. Science and technology development will probably be cheaper (clean rooms, naturally quarantined genetic engineering, large particle accelerators, etc). And so forth.
Low cost energy is the primary attraction, availability of huge quantities of resources and the capacity to build very large structures in low gravity probably comes second. These are game changers as far as the human race is concerned.
Dr. Sanity has a good write up about Columbus Day vs. Political Correctness.
Also, as far as needing PGM for fuel cells go. I just read something over on Gas 2.0 about a new ceramic that has been discovered that can replace platinum in fuel cells.
Ok, you need to explain a couple of these
>Pete says
> It is not necessary for there to be a direct Earth tradable economic commodity in
> space for it to be economically attractive. If living in space was better/cheaper than
> on Earth, then people would emigrate, as Earth history infers.
Earth history does not infer that. You can’t afford to live in a better/cheaper area if there are no jobs there. Otherwise folks wouldn’t move to high cost of living cities, away from low cost of living rural areas, or less developed countries. So where the product your space place is going to build and sell?
> There is a very strong correlation between energy use per capita and standard of living.
True.
> Energy use per capita has serious limits on Earth, not so in space.
How? Certainly in space disposing of waste energy (heat) is a big limit – and power production systems in space have a lot of the same issues as down here.
> For example, farming cylinders a few meters in diameter in space could be easily
> automated and incredibly productive with yields perhaps an order of magnitude
> higher than on farmland on Earth –
Most intensively maintained small gardens are, and you could build such cylindars on Earth.
> and available farmland is far less limited. ==
Ah – theres no land in space.
>== Food should eventually be much cheaper in space, ==
You’re seriously suggesting price per pound for food grown in space could be lower then on farms down here? Effectively gardens in space are like intensive greenhouse or hydroponic farms. They are not generally cheaper per bushel.
>==
>A good climate for living in should be much cheaper in space – energy
> is cheap. Habitable living space should eventually be much cheaper
> in space. Large engineering works will be much cheaper.
Why? Certainly production and assembly of such big structures is likely to be more expensive. Manufactured goods built in the smaller space market (or shipped up from Earth) would be more expensive.
>Cloud computing might be cheaper.
?? How?
>Science and technology development will probably be cheaper (clean rooms,
> naturally quarantined genetic engineering, large particle accelerators, etc). And so forth.
So far there are no large particle accelerators in space – and the quarantine / clean room issues are with people and equipment coming and going.
There are huge resource sources in space – but thats not helpful if you csan’t economically convert it to products delivered to customers. And no one buys things in space.
Economic benefits are vital to a colony’s survival. Even if your technology allows you to live off the land, that technology must be continuously augmented as the population grows and that costs money. Every new baby born on the moon or Mars requires the development 20 or 30 kilograms of carbohydrates and 60 to 100 kilograms of water. Even if the chemicals exist in the environment, you have to import the technology required to extract them and convert them to food. You also have to import your power generation, housing, air circulation, cookpots, etc. You not only have to bring in new items as the population grows but replace things that wear out or break. The colonists have to produce something which can be sent back home and sold at a profit to buy this stuff and the fact is, there’s nothing there. If launch costs to LEO were $200.00 a pound and Jim Hoagland’s aliens had left ingots of pure, refined gold just sitting on the lunar surface, you could not recover it and sell it at a profit. Thus the colonists would be unable to buy the things that would be vitally necessary to their survival, much less comfort.
This fundamental economics applied to the colonies here on Earth as well. The Pilgrims originally considered settling somewhere in North Africa but decided in favor of America because there were no exploitable resources in that part of Africa, but plenty in America. Even well into the 19th century most manufactured goods were imported in the United States
I don’t think colonization of planetary surfaces will ever be feasible.
With regard to Mark’s comment above, I think you are both wrong. It was possible to be free in the American colonies because it was literally possible to just wander out into the woods and do whatever you wanted, without bothering anybody. By contrast, in any space colony, sheer survival is going to be so dependant on technology, for mere air to say nothing of water, food and warmth, that the colonists’ lives will have to be very tightly controlled in order to assure their continued existence, much less growth.
As for Columbus, he was one of the great heroes of any age and should be justly celebrated.
I think the detractors are missing an important point. First, a colony doesn’t need to provide much of value. They need to be able to pay for what they get from Earth (or elsewhere), but that doesn’t have to be the job for most people in the colony. Second, people who migrated for economic reasons usually did so because they had relatives or friends already there and there were better jobs for them where they were going. Sure, those better jobs can be providing the export products, but it can also be internal jobs that have nothing to do with exports.
As I see it, even in the absence of any commercial product from Mars, you still have interesting science that can be done on and near Mars. Not only is Mars a potential source of life, it has a considerable geological history and is perhaps the best place to study the Asteroid Belt due to its considerable meteorite record.
Historic emigrations were often treated as one way trips. It is a mistake to consider them only from the perspective of the colonizing civilization and not also from the perspective of the people who actually emigrate – that is how wars of independence get started…
It would not actually surprise me if the colonization of America was a net economic drain upon England, it was for most places it colonized, but it was still highly profitable in the long term for those who did emigrate. For the first few generations the primary net external income for space settlement will come from immigration, but only if it is perceived to have future prospects as a better place to live.
For the USA and Europe international tradables are something like 10%, inferring ~90% self sufficiency; these are large economies, though they also have low external transport costs and could be far more self sufficient if they needed to be. I suspect most people who emigrate to space will take 10% or more of their life’s investments with them. The point being, the vast majority of the market for products built in space is people living in space.
In addition, the world already spends many billions of dollars a year in space. Assuming a say tenfold multiplier on to that for an estimation of the GDP of a space “country” and we get many tens of billions of dollars a year – a lot more than many countries currently in existence. Even on just existing space markets, a space “country” could reasonably expect to support some hundreds of thousands of people, assuming living costs were not dissimilar to Earth.
Average solar intensity in HEO is something like seven times greater than on Earth. Expect farming yields to scale somewhat accordingly. Yes there are difficulties with waste heat rejection in space – that is actually a likely secondary function of farming cylinders (incident solar radiation roughly equals radiative heat dissipation from a cylinder at 300K), these would be your radiators.
Energy is potentially much cheaper in space due to the much greater average concentration of solar power and the much lower structural cost of surface area. Some energy intensive industries, like computation, chip making, etc., might eventually be significantly cheaper in space.
The primary market for space settlement (beyond existing space markets) is space settlement. I am not sure that anything more is required, not that precious metals or whatever would not be nice, but there is already fundamental market enough to get to a few hundred thousand people, by which point I suspect things would take off. But for this to happen launch costs and habitat costs have to get down to a level where a significant number of people can afford to emigrate.
If launch costs to LEO were $200.00 a pound and Jim Hoagland’s aliens had left ingots of pure, refined gold just sitting on the lunar surface, you could not recover it and sell it at a profit. Thus the colonists would be unable to buy the things that would be vitally necessary to their survival, much less comfort.
You’re assuming that economic activity is based primarily on mining raw materials. That hasn’t been true for centuries, and it certainly isn’t true today. The mafia colonized Las Vegas without mining any raw materials, and unmanned satellites “colonized” GEO without mining or exporting anything except photons.
With regard to Mark’s comment above, I think you are both wrong. It was possible to be free in the American colonies because it was literally possible to just wander out into the woods and do whatever you wanted, without bothering anybody. By contrast, in any space colony, sheer survival is going to be so dependant on technology, for mere air to say nothing of water, food and warmth, that the colonists’ lives will have to be very tightly controlled in order to assure their continued existence, much less growth.
That’s a very old argument, which rests on the underlying assumption that centralized planners are more capable of managing technology than free men are. The evidence for that is — ?
(Of course, it is bizarre to see Mark use the word “libertarian” as something other than a term of derision and admit that something other than government bureaucracy could work beyond LEO. Has the real Mark Whittington been kidnapped by aliens? 🙂
By contrast, in any space colony, sheer survival is going to be so dependant on technology, for mere air to say nothing of water, food and warmth, that the colonists’ lives will have to be very tightly controlled in order to assure their continued existence, much less growth.
I think you are missing something important. In any small group anywhere, whether in space or here on Earth, the behaviour of individuals must be tightly coordinated for things to work. Consider the family, eh? Schedules must be synched, and if jobs are divvied up — you do the shopping, I pay the bills and take care of the kids after school, yadda yadda — these things have to be quite closely coordinated. You can’t just do your own thing regardless of other people, as teenagers routinely find out. Same for a small firm, if the firm is to survive.
This would, of course, be equally true in a small spacecraft, or in a small orbital habitat, or in a small Martian or Lunar colony. You’ve got to do your job, you’ve got to be on time, coordinate with others, and so forth.
The real opportunity for liberty, either here on Earth historically, and in space or on other planets ultimately, is not the ability to survive all by your lonesome without coordination with anybody at all — this is simply not possible, in general, for any human being, and never has been. No, the real opportunity is in the opportunity to change your affiliation. You can leave your present small group and join another that has rules and conditions that suit you better. You can, in a sense, get a “divorce” and “remarry” into a small group you find more congenial.
This is the kind of liberty people on the American frontier had. Life within the family, or a particular cattle drive, or small town, was just as circumscribed and coordinated with others as life on a nuclear submarine is or on a spacehab would be. But if you didn’t like this town or group, there was always another over the horizon that you could join instead.
As long as the same thing applies in space, I see no reason why your argument should hold at all. As long as you have the freedom to leave Spacehab Ugly Stupid for Spacehad Sweet Reason, then you have the only important liberty anyone’s ever had.
I should note, also, that very few of us chafe at the constraints that are clearly necessary for group survival. Teenagers don’t complain because dad makes them turn on the headlights while driving at night. Employees don’t grumble about their lack of libety because management has rules that say you may not set fires in your cubicles on cold days. In the same way, I would be surprised if anyone in a Spacehab complained about rules that say you have to close the inner door of the airlock before exiting the hab in your spacesuit, or any other rule obviously and directly about group survival.
Where people will disagree passionately is about those rules that are not directly related to immediate survival, about those cultural standards for example that are thought to lead to long-term happiness: issues of justice and economic competition and so forth. But those are exactly the kinds of rules that different habs or colonies would be very likely to implement differently, and can implement differently, because they don’t (contrary to your thesis) directly affect immediate survival. So as long as one is free to choose the group implementing the cultural rules of your taste, then you’ll feel like a free man, and you will be.
Arguably space or other planets are an ideal place for such freedom, because of the very isolation and expensive travel costs between colonies, which defeats the economies of scale that tend, over time, to lead Earth-bound societies to greater and greater centralization.
“I just read something over on Gas 2.0 about a new ceramic that has been discovered that can replace platinum in fuel cells.”
Oh yes. Ive been reading about these somethings for about ten years or more, and im young. Something happened in a lab somewhere, related to fuel cells/hydrogen economy/fusion/algae biofuels and a number of other “always ten years into the future” miracle technologies.
Look, it does not matter if PGMs could be replaced with some magic materials in fuel cells in some distant future. There are a million other things that one could develop with cheap abundant PGMs. And not just PGMs, there are plenty other critical elements that are unevenly distributed around the globe.
Its a paradigm change that people dont think about : current engineering revolves around conserving the scarce, expensive materials and making do with less. What if these materials suddenly became abundant, what COULD one do ?
Of industrially advanced, but always resource constrained places on earth Japan and South Korea immediately come to mind. Can you imagine the transformation of the world if Japan would have access to asteroidal metal resources ?
> Pete says
>=
> In addition, the world already spends many billions of dollars a year in space.
> Assuming a say tenfold multiplier on to that for an estimation of the GDP of a
> space “country” and we get many tens of billions of dollars a year -==
why would you assume such a multiplier? Why even assume that nations would spend as much as they do in space, on stuff that space colony?
>==
> Average solar intensity in HEO is something like seven times greater than on
> Earth. Expect farming yields to scale somewhat accordingly. ==
Why? You can’t shine 7 times as much sunlight on them without roasting the crop? You could keep them in 24/7 sunlight — assuming plants don’t need a night cycle for something.
> Yes there are difficulties with waste heat rejection in space – that
> is actually a likely secondary function of farming cylinders (incident
> solar radiation roughly equals radiative heat dissipation from a
> cylinder at 300K), these would be your radiators.
??
How? You’ld need to pump their temp up to increase radiation — and cylindars radiats in a 360 arc — so they would reradiate on everything next to them.
> Energy is potentially much cheaper in space due to the much greater
> average concentration of solar power and the much lower structural
> cost of surface area. Some energy intensive industries, like computation,
> chip making, etc., might eventually be significantly cheaper in space.
Its not likely that the structure would be much less – or that that would reduce costs? There would be more sunlight per area – but support costs in space would likely be higher. No idea what the energy cost would be compared to solar power on Earth — but I’ld bet the power costs would be much higher then on Earth.
> The primary market for space settlement (beyond existing space markets) is space settlement. ==
Who is interested in buying space settlement? What can they pay? How will they pay for themselves in space?
> Edward Wright Says:
> October 12th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I>==
> You’re assuming that economic activity is based primarily on mining
> raw materials. That hasn’t been true for centuries, and it certainly isn’t true today.==
What other economic activity would you suggest?
why would you assume such a multiplier? Why even assume that nations would spend as much as they do in space, on stuff that space colony?
Because that is how economics works – domestic economies tend to be far larger than export sectors. It is not worth popping over to Turkey just to get served a Turkish cup of coffee…
Why? You can’t shine 7 times as much sunlight on them without roasting the crop? You could keep them in 24/7 sunlight — assuming plants don’t need a night cycle for something.
The same size of greenhouse can support ~7 times the number of plants. Likely many plants would be rotated or periodic shading by other plants, which is is not particularly difficult. Yes some evolutionary adaption to higher radiation levels, low gravity, the more optimized climate, etc., might in time occur.
You’ld need to pump their temp up to increase radiation — and cylindars radiats in a 360 arc — so they would reradiate on everything next to them.
Yes, like space… If one does wish to pack greenhouse cylinders slightly more tightly then thin mirrors can also serve to increase heat dissipation, but I doubt this is much warranted, though it might also serve for additional micro meteorite protection.
Its not likely that the structure would be much less – or that that would reduce costs?
Yes it is, no gravitational loadings and no weather loadings.
There would be more sunlight per area – but support costs in space would likely be higher. No idea what the energy cost would be compared to solar power on Earth — but I’ld bet the power costs would be much higher then on Earth.
Due to very high launch costs solar power in space is indeed currently very expensive, but solar cells in HEO yield something like ~7 times the average power of ones on Earth and do not require the extent of physical structural support.
Who is interested in buying space settlement? What can they pay? How will they pay for themselves in space?
People with an inclination to emigration, and they will pay to the extent of their Earthly assets. Trading Earth homes, businesses, investments, etc., for space ones. Most of them will do much the same jobs as they would otherwise do on Earth. Farming, service industry, mining, manufacturing, science, technology, financial, construction, education, health care, etc.
>Pete Says:
>October 12th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
>> why would you assume such a multiplier? Why even assume that nations
>> would spend as much as they do in space, on stuff that space colony?
> Because that is how economics works –
You miss the point. Why do you assume it the worlds nations spend x billion on space, they will spend x billion in your colony?
>> Why? You can’t shine 7 times as much sunlight on them ==
> The same size of greenhouse can support ~7 times the number of plants.==
?
They will still take as much space up. Still take 7 times more nutrients. — and likely not like getting light 7 times as intense sunlight.
>==Yes some evolutionary adaption to higher radiation levels, low gravity, the
> more optimized climate, etc., might in time occur.
Or might not. Or over time the droping launch costs would make it more uneconomical.
>> You’ld need to pump their temp up to increase radiation — and
>>cylindars radiats in a 360 arc — so they would reradiate on everything next to them.
> Yes, like space… If one does wish to pack greenhouse cylinders slightly
> more tightly then thin mirrors can also serve to increase heat dissipation, ==
??
What?
>>Its not likely that the structure would be much less – or that that would reduce costs?
> Yes it is, no gravitational loadings and no weather loadings.
Still has to take “wind loads” torque loads, etc. But again, why would that lower costs?
>> There would be more sunlight per area – but support costs in space would
>>likely be higher. No idea what the energy cost would be compared to solar
>>power on Earth — but I’ld bet the power costs would be much higher then on Earth.
> Due to very high launch costs solar power in space is indeed currently very expensive,==
Cost would be reduced by the lift market to construct the colony.
>== but solar cells in HEO yield something like ~7 times the average power
>of ones on Earth and do not require the extent of physical structural support.
It would need about as much structure – but even with a 7 fold cost emprovement (which is unlikely) that still would make the solar power more expensive then power on Earth.
>> Who is interested in buying space settlement?
>>What can they pay? How will they pay for themselves in space?
> People with an inclination to emigration, and they will pay to the extent of
> their Earthly assets. Trading Earth homes, businesses, investments, etc., for space ones.
People get a inclination to emigrate for more opportunity – I.E. better paying jobs. Given you still haven’t specified what industry will form the economic backbone of your space colony
>Most of them will do much the same jobs as they would otherwise do
> on Earth. Farming, service industry, mining, manufacturing, science,
> technology, financial, construction, education, health care, etc.
And how do you compete with cheaper places on Earth doing that? Yeah IF the colony can pay its way that cold pay for support staffs plumbers, space ship repair tech, etc. But you talking the follow up, with no talk about the base. And again, you have to compete with the same busnesses on Earth with its lower cost of living and established infastructure for everything from cornflakes to IC chips.
You miss the point. Why do you assume it the worlds nations spend x billion on space, they will spend x billion in your colony?
I suggested a significant proportion of their space budgets, not all of them. And the obvious reason is because they will get more for their dollar by doing so. For example, a government space agency would be far better served by purchasing propellants at the local depot than carrying their own all the way from Earth. Government agencies are not in the habit of running basic operations in house (like cleaning, catering, transport, communications, etc), that they can more easily contract out to the private sector, I have little reason to suspect space programs will be any different.
And as has been repeatedly stated, one person in an export industry might support another ten in domestic industries. $20 billion in global space export earnings (around half what the world currently spends on space) might support a space GDP of ~$200 billion – or a country roughly the size of Demark in space.
They will still take as much space up. Still take 7 times more nutrients.
For a given size of greenhouse one will get around seven times the yield. This does not cause a serious plant packing problem. Yes this will require seven times the nutrients – the food produced should not be any less nutritious. Likely growing cycles will also be faster – faster turnover.
It would need about as much structure – but even with a 7 fold cost emprovement (which is unlikely) that still would make the solar power more expensive then power on Earth.
No, solar panels do not require as much structural support in space. Terrestrial solar panel weights are primarily driven by wind loadings, not so in space. The raw materials and production of solar panels is likely to eventually be cheaper in space due to lower raw material and energy costs, on top of this they will have some seven times the average solar intensity. How is it unlikely that they will not produce electricity for around a seventh the cost?
People get a inclination to emigrate for more opportunity – I.E. better paying jobs. Given you still haven’t specified what industry will form the economic backbone of your space colony
I specified such industries multiple times. A basic understanding of the economic history of North America, starting from pre Clovis times, should tell you what you wish to know.
And how do you compete with cheaper places on Earth doing that? Yeah IF the colony can pay its way that cold pay for support staffs plumbers, space ship repair tech, etc. But you talking the follow up, with no talk about the base. And again, you have to compete with the same busnesses on Earth with its lower cost of living and established infrastructure for everything from cornflakes to IC chips.
I have talked extensively about that base, please look to your own ancestral past and you will see what I was talking about. As I have said repeatedly, space has the ultimate competitive advantage for life, due to greater energy, resources and space, though the entry barriers are high. If you wish to understand this more I suggest you look up the term “planetary chauvinism”.
You are correct to consider competitive advantage, but this requires some understanding of the underlying physics and a profound understanding of time scales. The economic history of the North America is very interesting, and can help give such perspective. The economic histories of China, Europe, modern colonization and the Polynesian migrations, are also highly educational in this regard.
Great post Rand, and great discussion. One thing I haven’t seen noted is the fact that space-based and Mars colonies would have something that might in the future be intrinsically valuable: low-g. We may find in the future that human life spans are much longer in less-than-1-g environments. People might be willing to pay for that, in either sweat or treasure.
Until LEO launch costs come way down and reliability goes way up (closely interrelated factors, I know – especially if it’s a manned flight) arguing about costs is pure speculation. What’s more interesting, to me anyway, is the motivation for going.
Part of my interest is that I just got back from a trip to Arizona, New Mexico and southern Nevada. While there, I saw vast chunks of land that were available very cheaply to anybody who wanted them – like the 70 mile stretch of US 95 going from Laughlin to Las Vegas. You could plop down there and be 20 miles from your nearest neighbor.
The reason that land is empty is because if you want to live in Clark County, Nevada, and deal with the laws and rules thereof, there are lots of nicer places to do so, places where it’s easier to make a living. So, political sovereignty is a big factor.
In fact, various fringe “Mormon” groups live in Arizona north of the Grand Canyon today largely because they are left alone by state governments. Economically, there’s little “there” there.
The other factor, and one that’s not addressed, is subsistence. IIRC, the Pilgrims were not planning to set up an export economy. Their primary goal was to produce enough to be self-sufficient. Anything else was considered gravy.
Getting funding for a subsistance colony might be tough, although having seen some of the excesses of the dot com boom, anything is possible.
I’m always amazed how a fundamental point is missed in these types of discussions: when some of my ancestors colonized the Americas in the 17th century and another set the west in the 19th century, they were able to do so by the sweat of their brow. It wasn’t easy, but they could find a place, set up tents and establish a place to live. The history of mankind shows that this is how civilization usually spread (the North American West was, in many ways, unique in distance, but still similar in style)–just a few miles every generation.
One lesson of the Australian colonization is that you need to be self-sustaining. You need to exploit the natural resources where you live. I’m talking of basic, life sustaining resources as well as economic resources. You don’t have that in outer space–you can’t “just survive” off the land (or sea.) The parallel for space is the Antarctic and space is magnitudes more hostile.
This doesn’t mean we should explore space, but we should be careful about analogizing it to Columbian exploration or western expansion. They really aren’t that comparable.
I’m always amazed how a fundamental point is missed in these types of discussions: when some of my ancestors colonized the Americas in the 17th century and another set the west in the 19th century, they were able to do so by the sweat of their brow.
I think you’re missing the fundamental point.
You need to exploit the natural resources where you live. I’m talking of basic, life sustaining resources as well as economic resources. You don’t have that in outer space–you can’t “just survive” off the land (or sea.)
What part of “What you consider to be habitable is a function of your level of technology” did you miss? There is a technology level at which we do have that in outer space, and you can “just survive” off the land. We aren’t there currently, but it theoretically exists. Your ancestors who lived “by the sweat of their brow” couldn’t have done it with only sweat. It took technology for them, too; just a lower level of one.
Rand: it is theoretically possible to survive by the sweat of one’s brow in space, in that this doesn’t violate any laws of physics. The technology to do it is not there, is not anywhere close to there, and (barring some sort of rapture of the nerds singularity) will not be there anytime soon.
The kind of self-sustaining colonizaton on Earth involves the colonists making everything they needed, for themselves. This includes shelter and life support equipment, transportation equipment, tools, clothing, etc. No space settlement will be able to do any of this in the foreseeable future. Extracting simple consumable substances like water will be difficult enough.
> Pete Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 1:31 am
>
>>You miss the point. Why do you assume it the worlds nations
>>spend x billion on space, they will spend x billion in your colony?
> I suggested a significant proportion of their space budgets, not
> all of them. And the obvious reason is because they will get more
> for their dollar by doing so. For example, a government space agency
>would be far better served by purchasing propellants at the local depot
> than carrying their own all the way from Earth==
Little of what countries spend in space is related on gov efforts in space, or propellant lift costs. Nore is it likely a space colony could deliver fuel to LEO for lower cost then a launcher could from Earth. (The colony would force building low cost Earth to Leo launch craft/markets.) Most especially if the propellant costs would have to carry the cost of the propellant mine. At best it might sponcer a oil rig like base – not a colony.
We buy about 70% of our oil from Canada – more from Alaska -most in the arctic, but it hasn’t caused us to found oilcolonies on the north slope.
Given very little of what folks now do in space would even benifit from a space station. Making the jump to colonies is a real streach.
If Bigelow is successful, he might develop a couple billion a year market in space research platforms. That might support a residence and medical platform — which might (if launch cost/market develop) support a resort platform. But your maybe geting to billions to low tens of billions this way – and certainly not wasting space on farmss, schools, adn perminent residents. Your getting maybe to a cruise ship facility -not a colony.
> == one person in an export industry might support another ten in
>>They will still take as much space up. Still take 7 times more nutrients.
> For a given size of greenhouse one will get around seven times the yield.
Don’t know about that. Not important enough overall to worry about. There seems no way this would be cost competative with Earth based farms.
>> It would need about as much structure – but even with a
>>7 fold cost emprovement (which is unlikely) that still would
>>make the solar power more expensive then power on Earth.
> No, solar panels do not require as much structural support in space.
> Terrestrial solar panel weights are primarily driven by wind loadings, not so in space.==
Common mistake. If rockets manuver around – they generate a lot of wind.
But again – doesn’t mater, structures not a cost driver.
> The raw materials and production of solar panels is likely to eventually be
> cheaper in space due to lower raw material and energy costs, ==
Its not likely that the materials would be as cheep in space. You have tremendous amounts of great ore, but no market to drive a large efficent mining/milling operations.
> on top of this they will have some seven times the average solar
> intensity. How is it unlikely that they will not produce electricity for around a seventh the cost?
Higher cost to build, assemble, and service the solar panels in space then on ground. and solar is a expensive way to make electricity. So your space solar electric industries are saddled with high cost power.
Now if you were just usingh heat – hanging acres of aluminum foil to concentrate sunlight to melt stuff – you have a edge. But I only see that usefull for solarsteam freighters, or smelting some metals.
Again, your assuminghuge investments and imagration, with no credable huge economic drivers.
> Curt Thomson Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 6:42 am
>
>== We may find in the future that human life spans are much
> longer in less-than-1-g environments. ==
Sadly its the opposite. Lower grav puts lower loads on the cardiovascular system, causing systemic declines in Cardio vadcular, lung, immune, etc systems.
For example I waas told at NASA HQ that a couch potato spending the day siting and watching TV on Earth, gets more exersize then a astronaut in zero G doing a couple hours of cardio exercise a day. Lower grav isn’t as bad as zero g, but its worse then full G. Lab experiments with Dogs adn rats in 2-3 G mad for some really healthy animal!
Just like on Earth, sedentary life styles are bad for you.
> Joe Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 8:03 am
>==
> you need to be self-sustaining. You need to exploit the natural resources where
> you live. I’m talking of basic, life sustaining resources as well as economic
> resources. You don’t have that in outer space–you can’t “just survive” off
> the land (or sea.) The parallel for space is the Antarctic and space is magnitudes more hostile.==
Excelent point. I find some Mars settment groups litterally use little house on the prarie metaphores adn talk about farming Mars.
Living/working in space or on other worlds would be like being in a Arctic base/oil rig/or ship at sea. About everything you need to survive willneed to be engineered and shiped to you from life support, air recycling, power, to kitchen gear. Theres ore. someplaces have ice. No where has breathable air, drinkable water, farmable land, food, etc.
Actually its interesting to consider the key difference between the Vikings and Columbus. Columbus had the resources of the Spanish government behind him which enable him to return with enough men and equipment to overcome the natives and colonize the New World. The Vikings by contrast were basically family clans with very limited resources. Although they found much that was desirable in North America, and timber from America to Greenland was a potential export good, the did not have the resources needed to overcome the natives. Yes, Columbus did have the advantage of gun power, but the real advantage was a deep pocket investor and an endless supply of nobles seeking fame, fortune and the favor of the King.
There is a covered wagon analogy that might apply to space where one sets off in a large habitat module (~50mx20m?) which is somewhat self sufficient in energy, food, workshop facilities and raw materials refining and manufacturing. Propulsion might come from a separate high ISP tug.
Once one gets to a place of interest, say an NEO or the asteroid belt, start replicating and scaling up the habitat modules using the original habitat module as a manufacturing base. Definitely there would be a lot of skilled hands on labor involved in this approach. Maybe then export ore tankers and habitat modules in return for higher tech products from Earth (or near Earth).
“I find some Mars settment groups litterally use little house on the prarie metaphores adn talk about farming Mars.”
Your “little house on the prarie” comment reminded me of this essay:
http://turnrow.ulm.edu/view.php?i=95&setcat=prose
“There is a technology level at which we do have that in outer space, and you can “just survive” off the land. We aren’t there currently, but it theoretically exists.”
Does this logic work both ways?
For example, Canada has roughly the same area as the US but has only 1/10th the population, the bulk of which is along the US border. Can we conclude that the technology doesn’t exist to populate Canada? Can we expect a technological breakthrough that will make Canada inhabitable to the same degree as the US? If the problem is merely a matter of technological prowess when would you expect the population of Canada to approach that of the US?
Or will the population of Canada always be about a tenth that of the US regardless of technological level?
> Jim Davis Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 10:42 am
>
> ==
> Your “little house on the prarie” comment reminded me of this essay:
>
> http://turnrow.ulm.edu/view.php?i=95&setcat=prose
Yup, and Robert Zubrin, is the moses of those stone tablets.
The esays assumption that we’ll never really live in space, because the nature and connection with the Earth will forever hold us spiritually is kind of lame – fortunately.
>Jim Davis Says:
>October 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am
>
>==
> Canada has roughly the same area as the US but has only 1/10th the
> population, the bulk of which is along the US border. Can we conclude
> that the technology doesn’t exist to populate Canada? ==
We can colonize the Arctic, antarctic, great deseart. We could build floating cities and settle the mid ocean. But we don’t settle anywhere for long if we can’t pay the bills there. Waves of colonist follow opportunity – mainly economic opportunity. Hence why we keep arguing wahts the economic “killer app” that will support largescale space colonization or industrialization.
Can we conclude that the technology doesn’t exist to populate Canada?
No, we can conclude that the motivation doesn’t currently exist to do so. Canada is not outer space.
“Canada is not outer space.”
But California, Utah, etc are outer space?
Concerning the turnrow article Jim Davis references to: What a depressing dive into the acceptance of one’s own mediocrity! He is certainly welcome to his opinion, but just because he can find inner peace by reflecting on his own naval, also doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.
“This is where we shall live, die, and work out what it is to be human. Everything that the space movement seeks on the Moon or Mars, among the asteroids, around other stars—transcendence, renewal, heroism—isn’t there. Not a chance. It’s here or nowhere.”
Huh? There is enough annecdotal evidence from the astronauts to indicate that “transendence and renewal” most certainly IS there.
The reason that land is empty is because if you want to live in Clark County, Nevada, and deal with the laws and rules thereof, there are lots of nicer places to do so, places where it’s easier to make a living. So, political sovereignty is a big factor.
Chris, you are amazingly confused here. The reason that land is empty is because it started off empty, there is a lot of it, and not that much time has passed since it was opened to settlement. The exact states you mention have among the highest population growth rates in the nation (Nevada #1, Arizona #2, Colorado #3, Utah #4, New Mexico #12). So there is no shortage of people moving there, and, indeed, anyone who has lived in the far West for a decade or two, as I have, is struck by how many people are moving into those states and how strong the growth there is.
By contrast the areas of the country with the most dense population have poor growth rates, e.g. New York (#42), Pennsylvania (#48), Massachusetts (#41).
Carl Pham – first, I think we’re on the same side of the issue here, in that we think people will colonize space if they can get there.
Second, I think you’re missing the point on the Nevada example. I’m not talking about the state as a whole, but rather populations within a state.
In that case, US 95 south of Railroad Pass (where 95 becomes I 515) is not growing. There’s no reason to move south (same laws and overall economic outlook) and resources (water and power) are harder to come by.
Now, if that chunk of Nevada had different laws (a lower tax rate, for example, if not something more drastic) you’d see migration over the pass.
But California, Utah, etc are outer space?
No.
“But California, Utah, etc are outer space?
No.”
But above you quote Greason:
“Wind that question back 400 years. Why would anyone want to go this great howling wilderness in North America? When the pilgrims got here, they wrote about what inhospitable place it was, with no inns to refresh one’s spirits, nothing but howling wilderness. The first three attempts to make a permanent place in the Los Angeles area ended in death. Even now, you have to pipe in water to survive. We had to master fire to get out of Africa, and agriculture to get to a lot of places. The American West had to be subjected to massive civil engineering works before more than a small community of pioneers could live there. What you consider to be habitable is a function of your level of technology.”
And then go on to say:
“This is an argument that I (and countless others) have made in the past.”
So is outer space like the American west or is it not? Why couldn’t it be like subarctic Canada and Alaska, only much less hospitable? I’m not saying that it is, of course, but how can we know at this juncture? Surely it’s still an open question?
So is outer space like the American west or is it not?
It is in some ways, it’s not in others.
Why couldn’t it be like subarctic Canada and Alaska, only much less hospitable?
Because of the sovereignty issue.
Why couldn’t it be like subarctic Canada and Alaska, only much less hospitable?
Because of the sovereignty issue.
I think I follow you now:
Outer space is like the American west because there is the prospect for sovereignty in space but none in the American west but unlike Canada and Alaska because there is the prospect for sovereignty in space but none in Canada and Alaska.
I think I follow you now
Apparently not. You don’t seem to have a handle on the sovereignty issue, even though this is explained to you every time we have this discussion.
Ah ha, now I see your point, Chris. I agree entirely. Indeed, I think the history of the Far West is a pointed illustration of exactly what you are saying. There are headhunters in Utah who rub their hands with glee every time California makes some stupendously brain-dead collectivist head up the ass decision. A super duper progressive tax! Regulation up the wazoo! No power plants here! Zone everything so we don’t get any evil “growth”!
These people laugh and start talking to entrepreneurs and, hell, even ordinary senior workers. Had enough? Listen, just how much are you willing to put up with for those nice beaches and balmy weather, hmm? Consider St. George, Utah (one of the fastest growing cities out here). No personal income tax. Low business taxes. Sensible, modest regulation that confines itself to outlawing obvious evils, and doesn’t even attempt lifestyle regulation. Recognition of the necessity of economic activity. Low property prices. And, heck, some nice skiing, too.
And every year, people move out. Usually the best and brightest, too.
I think one should not underestimate this in terms of space colonization. If men of competence and ambition can get away from the cloying, suffocating hand of the collectivists and whiners and victim-syndrome parasites, they will go, whatever the cost.
> You’re assuming that economic activity is based primarily on mining
> raw materials. That hasn’t been true for centuries, and it certainly isn’t true today.==
What other economic activity would you suggest?
Those that rely on intellectual capital more than physical capital. Communication and information services. Exploration. Entertainment. Scientific research. Those industries rely more on intellectual capital than physical capital, less reliant on bulk shipping, and better able to tolerate the high costs currently associated with space transportation. They can also be done relatively close to home — in Earth orbit, or even suborbit.
It’s no coincidence that the first successful space industry was satellite communications, which is based on shipping photons rather than atoms. There’s nothing wrong with the goal of building a huge mining base on the Moon or Mars or Epsilon Eridani but the idea that such a base is “the next logical step” is (pardon the expression) “Looney.” There are plenty of intermediate steps that can and *must* occur first.
Columbus had the resources of the Spanish government behind him which enable him to return with enough men and equipment to overcome the natives and colonize the New World.
That is a typical space cadet statement.
Columbus did not have the complete resources of the Spanish government behind him. Ferdinand and Isabella required him to show a cost-benefit analysis before he received a penny. They were not just politicians but the leaders of a large business empire. The Kingdom of Spain was their personal property, in a very real sense, and they expected it to be run at a profit. Columbus was on a strict budget and used the cheapest transportation available — something you find completely unacceptable today.
If you’d asked the Spanish government to give you a hundred billion dollars based on nothing more than historical analogies (as you expect the US government to do), they would have shown you the door if not the dungeon.
So, you weren’t serious when you said you were more interested in practical, bread-and-butter markets these days?