28 thoughts on “Space Settlement And Starships”

  1. –Oh no! For some people this is a disturbing and deeply pessimistic conclusion to come to. Then when you combine that new judgment with the recently discovered problems concerning the plan to terraform and inhabit Mars (presence of perchlorates and absence of nitrogen), and we come to an entirely new realization about our species: there is no Planet B.

    Earth is our only home.

    Oh no again! —
    Hmm I would say the conventional approach to terraforming, is vastly more impossible than star travel.
    A major part of how vastly impossible it is, concerns the vast stuipidy of what is offer as plans to to Terra-form Mars.

    The main thing wrong with Mars is it has global dust storms. And the various stupid ideas could make this a worse problem. But that not important as other consequences such silly plans, but what count as teraforming Mars is the elimination of Martian dust storms. And to do this properly will require an scientific investigation which could indicate best ways of doing this- but adding more atmosphere seems like an unlikely answer.

    So the thin atmosphere is not a problem with Mars. There are many advantages of Mars having a thin atmosphere.
    One advantage or a thin atmosphere is faster air travel. Or Earth’s air travel flies to higher elevation in order to get this advantage, and future suborbital travel is taking this idea to the extreme.
    The air pressure of Mars is like Earth at 100,000 ft, or Mars pressure is about 1/100th of earth sea level. Density of Mars air is slightly different, it’s about .02 kg per cubic meters. Earth is 1.2 kg per cubic meter. 60 times .02 is 1.2. So roughly Mars has 1/60th of air density of Earth.
    Now, it doesn’t work this way, but if Earth’s gravity was the same as Mars, but Earth’s atmosphere was the same, we would flying plane near 100,000′ rather than 30K to 40K feet. And more importantly we can fly at faster speed.
    Now Mars would have fast landing speed or one would have solve that, but it can have a fast flying speeds. Though one probably just do suborbital travel, and with Mars low gravity, Mars suborbital is slower than Earth suborbital.
    Or it takes about 2 hours to go across the planet rather 1 hour. But since we don’t have suborbital travel yet on Earth, Mars would have much faster travel then what Earthlings are currently use to.

    Also the thin atmosphere is vacuum like and therefore easier to warm or cool homes. Or in spacesuit one has problem of being too warm as compared to being cold- unless you rolling around in some snow.

    So other than the dust storms, I say Mars atmosphere is just fine- or near perfect. Now to get pressure one can bodies of water. On Earth one gets 14.7 psi per 10 meters depth, on Mars one needs about 3 times more depth to get 14.7 psi. But to breathe one needs about 2.5 psi.
    So a problem with mars is finding enough cheap water- so you have lakes of it.
    Now I would refer you to solar ponds for a clue of how not to have the water freeze. Or one could have ice at the top of a a lake, and use nuclear power energy and it’s waste heat to maintain some temperature if one does not think a solar pond works on Mars [or even if you do:).

    Now such cheap water, on order of billion or trillion of tons, is lot easier than added atmosphere, and you don’t ruin Mars by adding atmosphere. Mars current atmosphere mass is 25 trillion tonnes- if want to double it, that is 25 trillion tonnes added, or 10 times, it’s 250 trillion. And with water one could get by with about 1 billion tonnes.
    As said problem with Mars is finding enough cheap water. This could be beneath the Mars surface. But assuming Mars doesn’t have available water, one import water from Space, getting a few hundred billion tons of water from Space, is not hard to do- it’s on the scale of few billion of dollars.

    1. Global dust storms will have little effect on anything. Light still gets through. Nuclear power negates the impact even further.

      Otherwise we adapt. This will be a source of humor by martians regarding provincial earthers.

      1. -Global dust storms will have little effect on anything.-
        How about transportation and navigation?
        Do you want to fly at speed of sound thru a dust storm?
        In terms of landing on Mars would a global storm be a problem?

        I tend to think human settlements will in general cause increase
        in the mass of the Mars atmosphere. As I also think industry on the Moon will make the Moon less of a vacuum. Apollo program is thought to added some atmosphere to the Moon, of course with the Moon it’s nearly a perfect vacuum and I suppose any significant increase of the “atmosphere” of the Moon could regarded as pollution- because the closer the Moon is to perfect vacuum the better it would be for various human activity.
        I don’t think increasing Mars atmosphere at same would as much of a problem- would not be be regarded as pollution. Or doubling Mars atmosphere or adding 25 trillion tons, would not be much of a problem, whereas added a billion tons to the Moon’s atmosphere might be a problem.
        Though perhaps in regards to Martian dust storms- making them more frequent and/or making them more intense- such doubling could be a problem.

        1. How about transportation and navigation?

          Almost no effect.

          Unless we are so stupid to terraform that which does not need it, we will not change the atmosphere much.

          Ironically, construction will to a slight degree reduce dust storms… very slight.

          1. –Ironically, construction will to a slight degree reduce dust storms… very slight.–

            I thinking selective mining could reduce dust storms, but lacking data.

  2. It’s shocking that Robinson doesn’t understand the Fermi paradox. It’s not based on FTL. Oort clouds intermix between stars. Once colonization begins, families in the Oort cloud will migrate, filling the entire galaxy. Between galaxies it’s more difficult to see.

    1. Yes. It is a silly article.

      As you say, colonization of the galaxy will likely happen by accident, without anyone actually setting out to travel from star to star. If you have the ability to live in the Oort cloud, what do you need stars for? You just keep looking for fresh resources, and, one day, find yourself on the other side of the galaxy.

      Generation Ships are the Apollo Program of interstellar colonization. Something that’s fun to do once as a stunt, but no-one would do of their own free will.

    2. –It’s shocking that Robinson doesn’t understand the Fermi paradox. It’s not based on FTL. Oort clouds intermix between stars.–

      Well the lack of FTL would not solve Fermi paradox, one could even argue if FTL were cheap/easy it, it explains why they aren’t here.
      As a guess I would say government is the reason, or what could a more readily apparent explanation is that alien civilizations have a low fertility rate.

      Say there say the total galactic population is less billion billion [a million trillion], and the single civilization with highest population is 50,000 trillion and reside in about 100 different star system which recently [last 1000 years] has birth rate higher than replacement , and therefore have a total population 1000 times higher than what is more common, which attributed to various peculiarities of the species.
      But perhaps no sentient creature actually knows the total population of galaxy but there could be some who might have guesstimates which they regard is accurate with is within +/- 10 trillion and such creatures would have to be somewhat fanatical on the matter of a Galactic Census and probably have fairly accurate maps of the galaxy, and could even be aware of Earthlings.and even the more recent reduction of human population growth [which makes Earthlings less interesting to them- or less doubt/interest connected to the business of the counting and cataloging of creatures].

      In such reality, there probably thousands of telescopes with a diameter larger than our Moon. And perhaps some are waiting for Earthling to make their own telescope/radio disk larger than at least 1 km. Or speculating that Earthling will take long time to become spacefaring and there are more intelligence species which don’t become spacefaring, as compared those that do.
      Perhaps the most stagnant populations are those who are highly dependent on AI- biological creatures mostly having AI children.

  3. There are tribes in New Guinea which were isolated from the rest of humanity for thousands of years. They survived just fine. Well, maybe not fine, but they survived.

    A nuclear submarine could stay submerged for 30 years, if it had only the crew needed to run the reactor. The environment outside is even more hostile than that in space. I have no doubt we can do much, much better.

    Finally, however, the author leaves out the possibility that human beings could extend their lifespan indefinitely. I don’t see people embarking on “generation ships,” but I could see myself embarking on a 100 year interstellar journey (even with a target whose habitability was unknown) if I could live more than 100 years. I would also go to Mars with the 20 or so years in my remaining life, knowing that I would never return. I would have done that when I was 20.

    1. I could see my wife and I embarking on a generation ship, provided a reasonable chance of arrival at the destination. Umm, except that my wife isn’t capable of bearing children since ovarian cancer, had no interest in children, anyway, and by her own admission doesn’t have the necessary intelligence to make the cut (and even if I did, there’s no way I’d leave without her).

      Terraforming Mars has always seemed like a silly, short-sighted solution to me. It lost it’s atmosphere once because it doesn’t have enough mass, it will lose it again. What a waste of volatiles, even if on a several million year timescale!

      I remember reading Robinson when I was younger, but I gave up after Blue Mars because of too many accumulated economic sillinesses, I thought. This article makes me think I was smart to quit when I did.

  4. There is another effect to consider.

    Say we had some kind of carbon nanotube cable to build a space elevator? Wouldn’t that materials tech make the mass fraction for a SSTO a piece of cake long before it was ready for a space elevator?

    Suppose we had safe, convenient, affordable, small nuclear power units — are there such things in that Matt Damon movie? Would they not be useful on Earth?

    Consider that shielding from radiation would require building Moon and possible Mars habitat’s underground? Could we not build underground or under-ocean cities here?

    The subject of abiogenic origin of terrestrial hydrocarbon fuels is controversial, but it has been demonstrated in diamond pressure cells that hydrocarbons can be formed from common minerals at the temperatures and pressures of the upper mantle. It was also proposed to send a probe to the Earth’s core by pouring a million tons of molten iron into a pit (a small fraction of world industrial production) and have it simply melt its way there.

    Envision and advanced terrestrial civilization that has devised some scheme like that to sink raw materials to the upper mantle to use the temperatures and pressures occurring there as an industrial resource and then recovering those materials. A civilization that is contemplating any style of starship has long had the wherewithal to do that. We could have limitless hydrocarbon fuels along with all kinds of other useful chemicals (and diamonds) that way.

    1. I’ve often thought Phoenix AZ should build underground for the constant 70 degree temperature. They don’t even build basements.

      1. Arizona has clay soil, which expands when it’s wet and contracts when it’s dry. Clay makes it too expensive to build a basement. It’s cheaper to add another story on top than to build a basement with walls strong enough to survive the wet/dry cycle.

        1. That’s why they have spacers in concrete sidewalks. I would think the benefits would overcome the difficulties.

          Like a mattress at 100 degrees at midnight after the a/c broke.

          1. You assume the cost of repairing an air conditioner is greater than the cost of building a basement. Builders don’t assume, they look at the numbers.

    2. “Consider that shielding from radiation would require building Moon and possible Mars habitat’s underground?”

      But would it?

      I read an article in the last year or so (possibly one Rand linked to) about experiments which had increased radiation resistance in test animals by several orders of magnitude. Apply that to humans, and we may be able to get away with far less shielding, or possibly none at all.

      This is the problem with most ‘humans can’t colonize space!’ arguments. Humans won’t be colonizing space. Something descended from humans will be.

      1. The radiation arguments are totally overblown. Without any protection but UV we are not talking about poisoning, just an increased risk.

    3. –Consider that shielding from radiation would require building Moon and possible Mars habitat’s underground? Could we not build underground or under-ocean cities here?–

      Well building underground or under-ocean cities on Earth would similar to problem of building them on Mars and the Moon- one has the environmental control issues. Or there advantages of being able to control the environment, but one also is required to control the environment.

      In terms of underwater, on Mars there is less pressure per depth, which means one can have more usable volume of water.
      With Earth’s ocean one might think to avoid storms and waves, the least depth might be 10 meters underwater- 14.7 psi, and another 33 feet below that it increases by 14.7.
      To not require submarine type structural strength, one could have the air pressure inside similar to outside pressure, so a structure 30 feet tall
      may need to have different air pressures, so have airlock between elevation difference, and Mars would be 1/3 of this difference.

      Another difference is the force of buoyancy. Take normal size house and have airtight under water and it will have large total buoyancy.
      Or if 10,000 cubic meter, it has 10,000 tons of buoyancy. Or total mass of house was 10,000 tons, it would be neutral buoyant. With Mars it’s 1/3 of 10,000 tons, though the mass would also be a 1/3 less
      weight, but if using some kind ballast/anchor, the cables or structural elements have 1/3 the load.
      But with Earth, I would suggest living above and below the water, in a buoy spar struture, and making the surface structure able to withstand storms. Or something like:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_buoy
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_and_offloading
      Mainly regarding “The circular FPSO Sevan Voyageur”
      So something like 2 or 3 stories above waterline and 2 or 3 stories
      below waterline. And use thick concrete rather than steel.

    4. “Consider that shielding from radiation would require building Moon and possible Mars habitat’s underground? Could we not build underground or under-ocean cities here?”

      We have lived underground in places on Earth for many millennia. In Turkish Cappodocia there is an underground city populated as early as 500BC and with relics as late as 500AD. There are lava tube caves on the Moon and Mars large enough (100 to 1,000 meters diameter) to house thousands of people. Seal them with local refined metals and an outer layer of white Aluminum or Titanium Oxide crystals, and use laser displays to show scenes of Earth on the walls. Have a poll each month on what next month’s scenery should be.

      Underwater is harder below 32 feet. Every 32 feet of depth adds an atmosphere to counterbalance. People do it, down to around 600 feet, at bases for working on oil rigs, but no one enjoys it.

  5. Many many years ago I had a book about space exploration from the late ’40s. One chapter in this book explained how ‘space warfare’ was impossible: you couldn’t use conventional guns because the combined movements of the target and the firer would present a solution too complex for even the best gunner with a slide rule to solve; guided weapons were out for the same reason: you’d have to pilot it all the way in to be sure of a hit against an evading enemy and it’d be impossible to find enough kamikaze-wannabe’s to man your torpedoes; and energy weapons were right out- basic physics tells us that a beam hot enough to melt steel at the target end must be even hotter at the origin end, and would melt its own emitter long before it could damage an enemy.
    The author of this piece was Isaac Asimov.

    Second, what exactly is the authority Mister Robinson uses as his platform? Oh right- his English degree. Wow.

    1. Asimov makes similar arguments against the bible. Instead of acknowledging the earth is a sphere and hangs on nothing (how did it know?) He attacks the strawmen of bad human interpretation.

      But I still love Asimov no matter how wrong he gets the older I get.

  7. Robinson’s Mars trilogy is silly. He imagines Mars terraformed from KBO impacts. Seemingly he has no clue what the energy expense would be or the trip times for transfer orbits to and from the Kuiper Belt.

    I couldn’t even finish 2312. Interplanetary Hohmann transfers that last weeks. “Aldrin Cycler” is used as a general term for cycler, he doesn’t seem to know it’s a very specific type of earth to Mars cycler. In general the man is innumerate and clueless.

    When it comes to space exploration, J. K. Rowling has more credibility than KSR.

    That said, I don’t think we’re going to be building star ships any time soon.

    1. Robinson’s Mars trilogy is silly. He imagines Mars terraformed from KBO impacts. Seemingly he has no clue what the energy expense would be or the trip times for transfer orbits to and from the Kuiper Belt..

      Pluto the planet or Kuiper belt dwarf planet is “Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 6.10” and “Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 3.71”
      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html
      And Charon orbiting at 0.21 km/s around Pluto, Pluto has surface escape of 1.21 km/sec.
      Generally it seems one could hit Charon when the pluto system was at faster orbit velocity around sun with some smaller object which had impact velocity of about 5 km/sec.
      Though a better use of Charon might be causing it to impact Pluto. But anyhow getting some KBO on hohmann trajectory to impact Mars would take a lot of time to impact Mars. And Charon impacting Mars is more transforming Mars than terraforming it. It seems one want a rock which could hit Mars within say, 5 years.

      1. I think KSR’s notion comes from a proposal by Chris McKay and Zubrin. They imagine nudging a medium sized comet to Mars. Their proposal entails a nuclear power source equivalent to 6 Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plants (I believe Palo Verde is one of the larger power plants in North America).

        They imagine using the comet’s ice as reaction mass. So in addition to sending the monstrous power source to the outer system, they are also going to establish infrastructure to mine and transport cometary ice to the rocket’s chambers.

        And, as I recall, this was for Centaur somewhere past Saturn.

        As for dropping Charon to Mars? Or other large KBO? I’d hazard a guess that is 5 or 6 times orders of magnitude harder than the Zubrin McKay proposal.

        I link to the Zubrin McKay proposal from this blog post: http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2014/02/terraforming-mars-vs-orbital-habs.html

Comments are closed.