VLSI@DEC-MARLBORO@sri-unix.UUCP (09/26/83)
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
When people talk of colonizing space, the analogy that always comes to my
mind is colonizing Antarctica. The two have a great deal in common;
both are vast and empty, and contain potentially rich resources, and
both environments are fatal to unprotected humans. Both have a desolate
beauty that one could grow to like. I knew a guy who had spent a year
down in Antarctica at a research base, and he brought back some extraordinary
pictures of the aurora. Antarctica has an edge over outer space in that
there is an occasional penguin to liven things up. Plus, it can be settled
with today's technology. (Please, no comments about how space colonies could
be built with current technology. Current technology means things that
are done in regular practice, not things that are just physically possible.)
And yet, there are no steamers packed with hopeful settlers on their way
south. This might be because only scientists and the military can get
permission to go there, but there doesn't really seem to be much demand for
homesteads. Antarctica is a barren wasteland. Living there means spending
all your time in a metal can, with an occasional few minutes outside.
No birds, no sunshine, no frisbee out on the grass. One can imagine
building enclosed domes full of greenery, but in fact no one can afford
to.
How is space different? Well, Antarctica is finite and space
is not. The possibilities for expansion are limited. Remember, though,
that ten million people have hardly begun to fill up Austrailia. Antarctica
is of similar size, but with four orders of magnitude less people. There
would hardly be any reason to feel cramped. And space isn't really infinite.
The only parts you can do anything with are Mercury, Mars, the Moon, the
few hundred asteroids of appeciable size, and the moons of the gas giants.
The total area of all of these probably doesn't come to much more than that
of the Earth. Venus is too hot, the gas giants are not solid, and the stars
are too far away. (Again, please, no talk of hyperdrives.)
Is life in space likelier to be freer than that in Antarctica? I don't
see how can it can be. There are already a maze of regulations and treaties
governing what you can do up there. As the military's presence grows, one's
freedom of action is likely to become even more restricted. People living
in near-Earth space can destroy cities just by dropping things on them;
Earthside authorities are not likely to let that go unchecked.
Still, the reason for going to Antarctica is the same as the reason
for going to space, knowledge. Knowledge is the cheapest commodity to
transport, so it's the first to be returned from distant places. Knowledge
is far more valuable than Antarctic coal or asteroidal steel. I don't
really care much if we can mine hydrocarbons from the surface of Titan,
but I would sure like to know what's going on down there.
Perhaps someday we will put lots of people and industry into space.
Micro-gravity could become a major component of industrial processes, as
major as, say, catalytic cracking is to chemical production. But the
real excitement of space is exploration and science. If all you are looking
for is a bigger backyard, then try the South Pole.
John Redford
DEC - Hudson
--------henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/30/83)
The fallacy in the comparison of space to Antarctica is the assumption
that they are equally hostile environments. Not true. Space is actually
quite a benign environment by comparison with almost *any* Earthly
environment. Of course, it won't support human life without help, but
that is true of *most* Earthly environments as well. (For example,
much of Earth is uninhabitable for humans without artificial heat
sources [or at least artificial insulation] for part of the year.)
Space presents a much more *controllable* environment; a modicum of
technology can fix environmental conditions at just about any value
you want, with little interference from nature. This is definitely
not true of Antarctica, where nature gets in the way badly.
Remember, Gerry O'Neill started the whole thing with the observation
that space is a *better* place for an industrial civilization than
the surface of a planet. Not just an acceptable or equivalent place,
but *better*. Because it's much easier to control.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrykrueger@uiuccsb.UUCP (10/06/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1199500:uiuccsb:15700005:000:780 uiuccsb!krueger Oct 5 19:37:00 1983 There is at least one more difference between space and land: free fall. Certainly this can be a boon to some technologies, but the effects on biological systems are not completely known (at least to me), especially in long term stays. Sure, people could live in a centrifuge, but how easy is it to make such a gargantuan structure? But don't get me wrong, I would be very excited at the opportunity to live in space (I've already got ideas for an orbiting swimming pool complete with upside-down diving board). On a related note, did those astronaut-ants that went up on one of the recent shuttle missions really die of "old age?" I seem to recall hearing this on "Paul Harvey," but then, I hear a lot of things ... Jon Krueger ...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger
ks@astrovax.UUCP (10/07/83)
Rumor has it that the "astro-ants" of STS-7 died from dehydration. The project was sponsored by a high school district in Camden, NJ.
cozadde@trsvax.UUCP (10/11/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1199500:trsvax:56000008:000:2364 trsvax!cozadde Oct 3 12:57:00 1983 To: John Redford I quite disagree with you on several points. In the main, the Antarctica is definitely a more hostile place to live, do business, or anything else required of a normal life. Space has only two unique problems, vacuum and hard radiation. The problems of vacuum have al- ready been addressed and disposed of in the short term and the long term is being studied and worked out. Hard radiation is a little tougher. It requires either moving quickly during exposure time or using some bulky object (Terra, Luna or convenient asteriods) as a shield during heavy radiation outburst periods. We will most likely develop better shielding as time goes by especially if a well paid for demand comes about. The main reason the resources of Antarctica have been left dormant is they are not unique. Coal is found all over the world and is easier to get to than digging through a few thousand feet of ice and snow to get to it. The same thing goes for oil, gas, metalic ores, etc. If the Antarctic had a resource that was unique (besides being the coldest, most removed from Man's corruptive influence) and economically recover- able, the place would be swarming with people (like the Yukon gold rush). On the other hand, space offers several unique resources that are either impossible or very difficult/expensive to duplicate here on Earth. The first is full range gas pressure regulation. Second is isolation from immediate integration with the human biosphere. Third is full range of energy sources, both intensity and type. Inexpensive transportation is available to move any size or (theorically) mass object as long as it is not within the atmospheric envelope of a plane- tary body. There are many more, but I'm not trying to write a paper here. In conclusion, I don't think space will be left as a barren wasteland as the Antarctic has been. There are more reasons to go there to work, live, and grow than the Antartic has ever offered. I'm so confident of this that I am planning to 'retire' to space to start my second life. I figure I can only live dirt-side until I'm sixty or so, but I think I could live to be 120 to 150 years or so if I live out my 'second' life in space. lt. of marines ...microsoft!trsvax!cozadde ...laidbak!trsvax!cozadde ...ctvax!trsvax!cozadde
ST801179@BROWNVM.BITNET (02/24/86)
My vote is for Epsilon Eridani-I hope they name the planet they land on "Vulcan". Garrett Fitzgerald