A long but interesting article at The Economist. There are some lessons here for space settlements.
9 thoughts on “Seasteading”
Comments are closed.
A long but interesting article at The Economist. There are some lessons here for space settlements.
Comments are closed.
There are some lessons here for space settlements.
The obvious lesson is that access is merely the tip of a very large iceberg of space settlement problems.
Jim,
No surprise there. Anyone who does a business model for space settlement quickly realizes that launch costs are the least important element.
The key technology advancements needed has always been in robotics, materials science, agricultural engineering, and bioscience. The work that Rio Tinto was been doing on robotic mining and the advances in 3D printing, both driven by commercial market forces, are far more important to advancing the goal of space settlement than anything that NASA is doing. The breakthrough in creating artificial meat is far more important than the reduction in launch costs that SpaceX has achieved. Dragonlab, and the potential it holds for material and biological research is far more important than the Dragon for transporting humans to orbit.
It always surprises folks when I show them that the Space Shuttle, despite its low flight rate and high costs, was more than adequate for space settlement IF the other technologies were in place. That is because once the technology to build spomes off world exists the only up mass you will need will be for humans, their personal goods, biological seed stock and the robotic systems needed to build the settlements for local resources. That is also why the Moon and not Mars will be the starting point, because, you need to be close enough to Earth to tele-operate the robotic systems needed to build and operate the first settlements.
The first settlers to the Moon won’t be craving their homes out of the wilderness like the early settlers to North America or the American West. Instead when they land at the spaceport they will just give their luggage to robotic servants who will show them the way to their apartment home where other robotic servants will have a warm meal and a hot bath waiting for them. Then they will probably take a dip in their pool to relax after the flight from Earth. No, it won’t be at all how space advocates and science fiction writers have imagined it.
Yes, existing launch systems are adequate.
In terms of population, its well to remember that genetic analysis and modeling show that the Americas, Australia and oceanic islands were all settled with initial populations of less then 100, perhaps as few as 50 related individuals. A starting group of 300-450 selected for maximum diversity would have more then sufficient genetic variability and technical skills to create a self reproducing off world population. The passenger version of the Space Shuttle proposed by Rockwell in the early 1980’s that would have carried 75 individuals a flight would have been able to launch such a population in only 4-6 flights. Probably another 50 flights, supported by perhaps 50 ELVs launches, would have delivered the mass to the Moon necessary to prepare the way for them IF the spome technology was available. The launch costs would have been only about twice what we have spent on an ISS that will be scrapped in a decade or two.
So no launch costs are NOT the barrier to space settlement. They never have been. It’s the lack of spome technology and a business model sufficient to justify the costs. The same barrier exists to sea settlements which is why there are none.
Unfortunately most space advocates come from the aerospace community and when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. When you are a rocket engineer the launch technology seems to be the barrier when its not. And hasn’t since the first shuttle launch.
The details of life on a seastead will be available to every Joe Sixpack via YouTube. If seastead life looks too appealing, it would be just as easy to whip up popular resentment and support for heavy-handed IRS enforcement against seasteads as it was for Mondale to attack NASA in the 60s.
Seems like it would be easier just to take over France. In fact, isn’t that #3 on the list of the world’s easiest things?
Someone should bring that up at the next GOP debate.
Obama promised us 57 states, dammit!
The real barrier is the unwillingness of these Libertarians to give up their American citizenship. 20,000 libertarians moving to New Hampshire would not impact federal law even if the state does have an irrational impact on presidential elections. But 20,000 to 40,000 immigrating to a small island nation, and surrendering their American citizenship while taking over politics there, would be able to create a flag of convenience nation suitable for both sea settlements and space settlements. Indeed, a well managed foreign corporation with a similar would work almost as well if your island nation is carefully selected, as the financial industry has shown.
I would go for the commercial business side first, to generate cash flow from services and facilities, and hope tourists, travellers, and workers decide to stay.
For some examples of potential reasons to build large sea-based facilities that include an airport.
Fishing: Examine a map of current fishing fleets and fishing grounds and how long it takes them (in time and fuel) to get fish to market. Are there some economic advantages to putting an offshore installation near great fishing grounds that aren’t served by any nearby islands or coasts? If so, perhaps a fishing fleet could be based at the structure, where the fish are processed and loaded onto commercial aircraft for rapid shipment to the mainland. Even without the airport, such a base could allow fish to be off-loaded, processed, and shifted to larger, faster, more efficient transport ships for delivery to market, which not only saves money in transport, but frees up fishing boats to go back to fishing instead of spending days or weeks making the round-trip to shore.
Transoceanic airports: Examing a map of commercial air routes, where in the middle of the oceans could a few new airports generate revenue? Aside from serving as emergency landing fields for commercial aircraft flying existing routes, they could, for example, allow the massive fleets of shorter range corporate jets to hop their way between North American and Europe. Refueling and servicing corporate and private aircraft would provide a constant revenue stream. Such airporst could also be used air forces as refueling/stop-over points for fighter and attack aircraft being flown to trouble-stops around the globe, lessening the need for mid-air refueling escorts and long-range drop tanks.
Once you have a viable, profitable airport up and running, you automatically have a fairly large workforce, access to rapid transportation too and from one or more continents, governmental protection (For example, the Air Force would defend such a base like the strategic asset it is, both militarily and politically, without needing to staff and run it), and a safe-haven so remote from any land, yet serving the needs of so many different countries, that no country could plausibly claim it for itself.
Much of the biotech and nanotech necessary for space colonization can be developed by seasteads.
I think I’ve found a spot for my airport. The Atlantis Massif on the mid-Atlantic Ridge, which rises to within 700 meters of the surface. 🙂