poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (05/29/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 29 May 85 Volume 5 Number 23
Contents: Space Colony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 28 May 85 12:15:24-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: [Bruce Bon <BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA>: TSS Vol I #2]
THE SPACE SETTLER
Newsletter of the Space Pioneer Society
Volume I, Number 2
Second Quarter 1985
SPS Progress
The Space Pioneer Society is an organization of people
who believe that it is possible to live in space within the next
50 years and who sincerely want to have the opportunity to
do so. Unlike the L-5 Society, the National Space Institute,
and others, SPS has neither public education nor the
influencing of political decisions as primary goals. We
intend to achieve space settlement through our own efforts
and through recruiting a large community of like-minded
individuals who will invest their time and talents into
making a future for themselves in space. Freedom is our
most cherished value, one which we will preserve in space.
SPS has now been in existence for a year and a half.
We have developed an organizational structure which
compensates both monetary and other contributions with
"shares" which determine the voting power of each
member. Monthly board meetings are held to conduct
business and determine policy, and general meetings consist
of discussions of issues relating to space settlement. The
Space Settler (TSS) provides an effective means of
giving current and prospective members information about
who we are and what we do.
The February board and general meetings were held at
Big Bear, but unfortunately the weather (snow) prevented
most of us from attending. The March meetings were in
Redondo Beach and were well attended. The primary
topics addressed at the board meeting were problems with
the SPS Master Plan, TSS distribution and advertising, and
ways of increasing membership. Margaret Jordan was
appointed to head a committee to investigate problems with
and improvements to the Master Plan (see below). It was
decided to accept TSS advertising at rates to be
determined. During the general meeting, we discussed how
to guarantee the sovereignty of an SPS space settlement.
If you are not yet a member of SPS, take a look at what
we want to do and decide whether you would like to be a
part of it. If so, then attend a meeting or fill out and return
the membership form on the back page of this issue.
Whether or not you are a member, let us know how you like
TSS and how we might improve it. Correspondence may
be sent to TSS Editor at the SPS address, also listed on the
last page.
The SPS Master Plan
The SPS Master Plan, as detailed by Terry Savage in
the previous issue of TSS, consists of five phases, utilizing
existing technology with modest improvements, leading to
an independent society in a habitat beyond Earth orbit. In
Phase I, the urban phase, SPS members will acquire
property and live in a specific city, probably Redondo
Beach, California. This phase will establish a community of
perhaps 1000 people within 7 years. During Phase II, the
ex-urban phase, SPS will establish a community within a
city that is close enough to an urban center for commuting,
yet far enough away to be somewhat more isolated than in
Phase I. Phase III, the isolated-Earth phase, will entail
building a new city at least 200 miles from the nearest urban
center, probably in the desert. The purpose is to develop a
fully functional society whose central focus is the expansion
into space, and whose economic, social and governmental
institutions will serve as models for those to be established
in space. In Phase IV, the near-Earth/space phase, we will
build and occupy a space habitat in Earth orbit. This phase,
targetted for habitat completion in 2010, will cost at least an
order of magnitude more than the earlier phases combined
(estimated at $10 billion for the first hundred people living
in space). Finally, in Phase V, the "free space" phase, we
will establish a fully functioning, fully independent society
in space, probably in the asteroid belt. Although extensive
commerce with Earth is expected, the settlement will be
entirely self-governing.
The SPS Master Plan will require exceptional
dedication by many people in order to achieve a worthwhile
and ambitious goal. A number of difficulties with the plan
have been pointed out. Because the Master Plan provides
the focus for our activities, we are attempting to address all
difficulties and arrive at a consensus within the next two
months. A committee has been appointed to study revisions
and alternative scenarios, the rest of this issue of TSS will
be devoted to discussing problems and possible solutions,
and the June general meeting of SPS will take up the Master
Plan. Please plan to attend the June general meeting (see
Calendar) if you would like to contribute to this discussion.
If all goes well, we will approve a revised (or replacement)
Master Plan at the June board meeting.
Letter to the Editor
Dear Sir:
In "The Space Settler", Volume I, Number 1, the SPS
Master Plan was laid out in a scenario consisting of five
phases. As an individual wishing to see the establishment of
space settlements, I am disturbed by the philosophy of the
plan, for there is a basic misdirection in the first three
phases. If this misdirection is not corrected, I believe it will
not only lead SPS astray, but will do actual harm to its
purpose.
The first three phases tell of SPS growing as a
community, starting in a major city, then moving outside
the urban area, and progressing to a rural setting where the
community can create its own social/governmental
structure. The purpose of this migration is to gradually
build a cohesive community which will have settled most of
its social problems before the leap into space. In addition,
since the community will be composed of intended space
settlers, they can develop a group philosophy which will be
space-oriented. As a blueprint for a social goal, these first
three phases cohere very well, with each phase leading
smoothly into the next.
However, then comes Phase IV and the community
suddenly leaps off into space! The first three phases may
prepare philosophically for the move, but physical
considerations are ignored. Until Phase IV the members of
the community have continuously lived in absolutely
ordinary conditions -- condominiums, apartments, and
houses in standard towns and cities. The physical conditions
and constraints with which the first space habitat will
confront the settlers will come as a shock and immediately
render plans conceived on the ground obsolete and
meaningless. The citizens will have to insure their own air
supply and the integrity of the walls, deal with industrial
heat, prevent loss of water, grow their own food, manage
their waste products, and face a host of other practical
problems. Perhaps the greatest danger will be from the
citizenry itself -- a child or a foolish, tired or malicious
adult may open an airlock and cause a disaster. The lives of
the inhabitants will depend on the actions of everyone else,
directly and constantly. Thinking about these problems is
not the same as experiencing them, and the experience will
mold the social structure in any way it "wants". Thus the
first three phases lead SPS astray by not basing the build-up
of the community in a setting that will experiment with the
real-live factors.
Worse yet, the first three phases of the plan will lead to
actual harm to SPS's goal in three ways:
a) Appearance. The proposed migration is one of
increasing social isolation without the excuse of a physical
reason. Rather than being seen as a clear-headed plan to
build a space colony, the moves into the mountains and out
to the desert will appear to be the founding of a space-nut
commune. Last summer I visited the Arcosanti project in
Arizona and saw first-hand how to build a failed dream.
The plan was to construct a city based on radically new
ideas in architecture, resulting in a completely integrated
community. After 20 years of struggle the place most
closely resembles an African mud hut village. The guide on
the tour I took sheepishly admitted that at the present rate
the project might be finished in 600 years. By choosing to
build their dream city way out in the boondocks, they cut
themselves off from any media attention, any business
interest, and any possible inhabitants except hard-core
believers in the dream.
b) Price. A lot of time and money will be expended in
creating the desert city proposed in Phase III, and even
moving to an established town as put forth in Phase II. If
this money is not spent on recreating a space settlement
situation, then it is only going towards isolation, seen as a
virtue in building community cohesion. But who will live
in the isolated village? Certainly not professional people
who need to be near their jobs (earning their average net
worth of $500,000 necessary to the plan). Even Big Bear is
too far and exhausting for continual commuting into Los
Angeles. A desert community will tend to exclude the very
people needed to make the plan fly.
c) Purpose. By Phase III the plan hopes "to develop a
fully functional society, with the benefits (and costs!) of an
existing social/governmental structure." Whom are we
kidding? A commune out in the desert will be very
dependent on the outside world for its livelihood -- for
business, for food and materials, and especially for water.
If we try to construct a town out in the desert, we'll be
fighting land and water bureaucracies for years, and never
be free from them.
So I believe the plan as written is wrong. I have an
alternative plan which, though harder to implement, is
more directly to the point. I would replace Phases I, II and
III with two Action Levels (using the word "level" to
emphasize that the action continues and does not end like a
"phase" does). Thus:
At Level I, SPS creates a "community of interest",
building a society within an urban environment tied by
common belief. Those who choose to do so can live
together, but at this level the social/practical experiment is
not the goal. SPS members may choose to remain at Level
I. These people would provide support (especially money)
and, still being in the mainstream society, would be the
people who would seek new members.
Level II is a big step. An isolated settlement would be
constructed that would simulate the situation in space, thus
providing an experiment that combines the practical with
the philosophical. The closest simulation I can think of
would be an underwater village. By living in an enclosed
city in the ocean, the citizens would experience problems
quite similar to those of a space colony. While being as
isolated as they want, the inhabitants would be close to
emergency help from the mainland. Rather than appearing
antisocial, the media would picture the citizens as pioneers,
granting us coverage and attracting capital. Our social
experimentation could be aided by universities who would
be attracted to our unique experiment. By being part of a
special commnity, members would be less likely to drop
out. Construction costs would be high, but the technology
exists. Furthermore, there would be far fewer conflicts
with existing governmental structure (correctly placed, the
colony would have to deal with selected departments at the
federal level, but not with state and local agencies).
When Level III (the old Phase IV) finally rolls around,
the practiced settlers of the ocean colony would shift into
their space far more easily. Remember also that Level II
would not end and the underwater village would be a
permanent testing station for potential space colonists.
I agree with the idea that building a space colony will
require the consideration of what type of society it will take
to make it and to live in it. However, more than just the
instillation of beliefs is needed and I feel that my changes to
the plan address the other issues. I hope the members of
SPS will consider these changes carefully.
Sincerely,
David L. Pleger
More on SPS Master Plan Problems
by Bruce Bon
As illustrated by Mr. Pleger's letter, we must forecast
the consequences of each part of the Master Plan in order to
make decisions which will result in our achieving our goals.
To do this with complete accuracy is, of course, impossible,
and the Master Plan will certainly evolve as SPS grows and
begins to achieve the preliminary goals.
Mr. Pleger points out some of the potential problems
with the currently envisioned Master Plan: it does little to
prepare the first space settlers for the radically different
conditions which will exist in a space habitat; the desert
community will appear to many to be a "space-nut
commune"; distance from professional opportunities will
exclude many of the very people we need in Phases II and
III; and the desert community, rather than being
self-sufficient, will be regulated by and dependent on the
outside world.
The desert community will require a very large initial
investment to get it beyond the mud-hut phase currently
being experienced by Arcosanti. Furthermore, it is likely
to be in a resource-poor area, since areas rich in resources
have long since become urban centers. What will be the
economic basis which will support the community and
attract people and businesses to it?
A fundamental conflict which any plan must address is
that we need as many professional, high-income members
as possible, thus suggesting nationwide or worldwide
distribution of membership, yet the sense of community and
strong commitment are more easily achieved in a smaller,
isolated locality. Possible compromises to resolve this issue
are a distributed community through telecommunications,
or a community adjacent to a very large urban center (e.g.
Los Angeles) to make commuting feasible.
Mr. Pleger's suggestion for developing an underwater
community has a lot of appeal -- it combines the challenges
of a frontier with relative isolation and a resource base that
could provide energy and materials for a totally
self-sufficient community. The location(s) selected will
determine the degree of isolation, but also affect many
other important parameters. I would like to suggest
locating the first ex-urban community in relatively shallow
water just off the coast near Ventura, California. While this
will subject us to local, state and federal regulation, it has a
number of significant advantages. The first habitat could be
very small, allowing modular growth and manageable
incremental investment. Ventura and Oxnard will provide
professional opportunities and a support infrastructure
(grocery stores, entertainment, services, etc.) while the
community is still too small to provide these. Proximity to
the northeast edge of the Los Angeles metropolitan area
will make it possible for residents to commute to
professional jobs and for members from the Los Angeles
area to commute on weekends to the community.
Proximity to beaches and Pacific Spaceport (a project of
Space Resorts Enterprises which should open in 1989) will
provide visibility to the media and to tourists. The
economic base for the community might include tourist
trade, support of underwater research, farming of fish and
kelp, and perhaps even exploitation of underwater mineral
resources. Commuting to shore would mean a short boat
ride or, eventually, a walk or bike ride through a tunnel to
shore. Environmental threats (storms, earthquakes) would
provide a continual challenge and would foster a desirable
sense of community and cooperation. If we succeed in
making an economically viable, ecologically responsible
undersea community, it will not only further the goals of
SPS but provide a model to the world.
Finally, I would like to urge anyone who is interested
in the issues surrounding the SPS Master Plan to attend the
SPS general meeting on June 7 at 8:30 or to write us about
your ideas. The June meeting will focus on resolving any
difficulties with the Plan and include discussion of details
of the evolving Plan.
Upcoming SPS Meetings
SPS Board of Directors meetings are usually held at 7:30 p.m.
and SPS general meetings at 8:30 p.m. at the home of Terry Savage.
Meeting dates for the next 2 months are June 7 and July 12 at
Terry's. Call 213 824-3739 for information on all upcoming SPS events.
[A few comments if I may be permitted:
I myself am personally very gung-ho on space colonization, to the
extent of being willing to spend several thousand dollars to further
its cause over the next decade or two (this doesn't come to more
than most serious hobbies). However, I'll be damned if I'll give it
to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs).
I would suggest that a very loose collection of enthusiasts, a sort
of market in which engineering groups, publications, shows and
conventions burbled around "spontaneously", would have a much
better chance of actually (a) lasting long enough to do some good,
(b) coming up with viable designs, and (c) in the event of success,
being the basis of a free society, than a rigid organization following
"n-year plans".
Whenever I hear anyone say, "a desirable sense of community and
cooperation", I hide the valuables and haul out the ol' punkin shooter.
The political implications of an O'Neill-type colony disturb me
greatly. A single habitat on which all life instantly depends,
would be even a greater invitation to tyranny than the mere control
of the food supply and jobs in a communist state. (Alexis Gilliland
to the contrary notwithstanding.) I envision a "free" colony as
being a "bunch of grapes", each grape a family-sized privately
owned habitat. The habitats must be at least nominally "independently
survivable", giving the people at least the threat of "voting with
their feet".
I believe that this approach would also drastically lower the
probability of catastrophic accident. It would also have the
advantage that family-sized units would be a lot easier to experiment
with, and that they need not all be of the same design (another
engineering inefficiency and safety factor). And the incremental
buildability of the colony(ies) in contrast to the O'Neill scheme
is obvious.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------