100 of Earth habitats for one trillion dollars

[nexium]

We build one vehicle per year about as big and complex as the space shuttle, but we assemble it at the ISS = international space station. The completed craft are "manned" by two female colonists 24/7. When a suitable asteroid passes closer than the moon, the craft lands on the asteroid. Typically about two days travel time. With present technology we can only catch the slower asteroids, and we need to launch hours before the asteroid passes between Earth and moon, which is why the colonists stand by 24/7. If they miss the landing, an altenate asteroid is selected. Perhaps two weeks travel time = 7 times the radiation exposure, perhaps worse, but they probably will live long enough to produce a child or two, preferably female. They use a sperm and embyo bank to produce the children as soon as it is decided the asteroid habitat is reasonably safe. The mass center is the safest place for the habitat in very small asteroids = underground. The habitats will be tiny.<br />About the time the first craft is ready, we start launching supply rockets into random solar orbits. This is a shotgun approach to deliver supplies to the asteroid habitats. We could have 15 healthy habitats by the 18 th year when the children born in the asteroid habitats will want their own habitat. About that time a suitable asteroid will drift by the habitat, and one adult and one teenager can easily tranfer to the new asteroid using a retrofitted supply rocket. Since they are far from Earth's gravity well, little energy is needed to change asteroids. We continue to launch a supply rocket about once per month until most of the habitats have a 100 year supply of food and other essentials. We could have 100 asteroid habitats in less than 200 years, even if we only send ten or twenty craft out from the ISS, and little technology advance. Assuming technology continues to advance, 1000 off-planet habitats are probable in 200 years, including a dozen moons and a few comets beyond Neptune.<br />If Earth is

 

[lysol]

Uh....why?<br /><br />Not to mention going nuts in an enclosed environment when little or no social interaction. Why not just set up a colony with a few hundred people somewhere ?

 

[kelvinzero]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We build one vehicle per year about as big and complex as the space shuttle, but we assemble it at the ISS = international space station. The completed craft are "manned" by two female colonists 24/7. When a suitable asteroid passes closer than the moon, the craft lands on the asteroid. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It would make a great final episode of "The simple life" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I think before we can start on such ideas we have to demostrate here on earth in simulated environments<li> the ability to keep people alive long term with very low consumption of resources apart from sunlight.<li> ISRU technology: oxygen, aluminium, glass, magnets, solar panels...<br />We should be pouring huge money into these areas IMO to enable ideas such as yours.</li></li>

 

[nexium]

I agree, an off planet colony with 100 people has some advantages, but possibly all in the colony would go nuts and/or die. With technology likely soon the hundred person habitat would cost more than a trillion dollars and would not be more self sufficient than the average of the many tiny habitats, which I suggested.<br />I agree we should fund several far below ground colonys below Earth's surface, to study the mental and physical needs. The nuclear submarines are the closest we have come to such a study so far. Neil

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Who's bringin' the Kool Aid?<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[kelvinzero]

Ive also thought an underwater domed city/hotel could make a great tourist attraction. Also it could be a boat-trip from some famous beach resort.<br /><br />I wonder how much research went into bunkers during the cold-war? No doubt only for the generals, politicians and their mistresses <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/content/articles/2005/12/14/burlington_nuclear_bunker_feature.shtml<br />"Blast proof and completely self-sufficient the secret underground site could accommodate up to 4,000 people, in complete isolation from the outside world, for up to three months." <br /><br />Another idea I quite like is designing the lunar landers so that the decent stage (the bit left behind) can be converted to a small permanent outpost. Perhaps it generates oxygen for its tanks and stores power in some form at a very slow rate so that at some future point it is worth revisiting to collect its resources.

 

[annodomini2]

Commerical prospects, hmmm:<br /><br />The new big brother, 2 women trapped alone on an asteroid! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> lol jk <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[keermalec]

Hm this would be conceivable if men were interested in spending their hard-earned money for perpetuating the species. The question is: are they? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow">I agree, an off planet colony with 100 people has some advantages, but possibly all in the colony would go nuts and/or die. With technology likely soon the hundred person habitat would cost more than a trillion dollars and would not be more self sufficient than the average of the many tiny habitats, which I suggested. <br />I agree we should fund several far below ground colonys below Earth's surface, to study the mental and physical needs. The nuclear submarines are the closest we have come to such a study so far. Neil <br /></font><br /><br />Your basic ideas are good ones.<br />This is essentially the way we should proceed. <br />Space settlement / colonization should be the goal of all our space activity beginning right now and until we succeed.<br /><br />An off planet colony is the way to start. Namely, a colony on the Moon. It is near enough that we can handle most contingencies with help from Earth, yet far away enough (and in a true space environment) where we will et valuable experience living off planet that will be applicable to many other habitats we will want to create.<br /><br />The thing to keep in mind that will make things easier at the beginning, is that we don;t need to build a colony that is immediately self sufficient. It will be ok (and preferable) to have an umbilical supply cord making tht first Lunar colony dependent on Earth for a number of things: Food / manifactured goods / some raw materials, etc. <br />Over time, the colony will expand in size and self sufficiency such that the "umibilical" to Earth gets smaller and smaller until, at some point, the Lunar Colony becomes completely self sufficient and we "cut the umbilical".<br /><br />The colony should be of sufficently large size (perhaps 300 to 500 people and plenty of living space per person) so that the social and phsychological effects of living in small groups in cramped quarters are not an issue.<br />Also, there will be a lot of activity and traffic of peo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I think there are three prime locations for colonies in the solar system.<br /><br />1) Moon - because of easy access<br /><br />2)Martian caves, because they can easily be sealed and pressurized.<br /><br />3)asteroid belt, for economic benefits <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

This is true.<br />But woudl you agree that the most logical place to build our FIRST off planet colony is the Moon? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I'm actually not sure.<br /><br />The Moon is close....but Mars has so many other advantages for a colony, due to its similitude to Earth<br />plus more interesting past that warrants heavy exploration.<br /><br />Maybe it's just me, I get more excited thinking about a Martian colony than a lunar one.<br />Plus, we might, just might, be able to grow vegetation on Mars and raise the pressure enough that only moderate protection and an oxygen system will be needed to work on the surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

No pain, no gain! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> Maybe it's just me, I get more excited thinking about a Martian colony than a lunar one. <br />Plus, we might, just might, be able to grow vegetation on Mars and raise the pressure enough that only moderate protection and an oxygen system will be needed to work on the surface. </font><br /><br />Of course it's not just you.<br />Dr. Zubrin, the entire Mars Society and many other unafilliated people all over the world agree with you.<br /><br />For me, it comes down to this: I don't knwo how old you are but there is a chance that you or I will get a chance to visit the Moon colony in our lifetimes. And if not you or I , then many people from our generation. While access to Mars by "regular people" is at least a century away.<br />To me, it's not just the proximity in distance of the Moon but alos the proximity in time as to when it will be accessible to large numbers of people.<br /><br />As far as Terraforming Mars, that would take a few centuries with technology that we are just beginning to imagine now.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> You're not alone. The moon is bleak. No air. Two weeks of darkness followed by two weeks of blinding sunlight. Few natural resources to help you with you colony. But easy to get to! <br /></font><br /><br />I think the Moon is beautifull. I would LOVE a chance to visit.<br />I am working under the assumption (ambitious though it may be that I will get a chance to go there in my lifetime - otherwise it's almost not worth it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ).<br /><br />As to raw materials, the Moon offers oxygen, iron, magnesium, titanium, aluminum, plus the regolith material itself. As you know there is also some probability that large ice deposits exist at the poles. That of course would mean we have water and hydrogen.<br />About the only critical elements that we don'f find on the Moon (assuming the ice is there) are carbon and nitrogen.<br />If there is no water and we have to take hydrogen from Earth it's not such a big deal. Taking one ton of hydrogen to the Moon will let us manufature 8 tons of water (with the existing oxygen already on the Moon - which accounts for over 40% by weight of the lunar surface regolith)<br /><br />Also, there are certain special places on the Lunar north and south poles where teh sun almost never sets. One particualr place is called Malapert Mountain near the South pole.<br />Teh sun shines on Malapert peak about 94% of the time. The longes period of darkness is about 3 days and it only happens about 6 times a year.<br />Obvioulsy, if humans are going to live there in large numbers, technology will provide all teh conforts of home including regualr day/ night cycles (in the habitat).<br /><br />One of the coolest things about visting the Moon would be the 1/6 gravity. A regular person can jump about 6 to 8 feet straight up in the air. You can jump off of a 4 or 5 story building and land safely. In a habitat pressurized to 1 atmosphere, a person could strap on a pair of plastic wings and fly around under th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<br /><font color="yellow">As far as Terraforming Mars, that would take a few centuries with technology that we are just beginning to imagine now.</font><br /><br /><br />what I referred to is not terraforming.Simply generating, by whatever means necessary, a dense atmosphere of CO2 and other gases that allows plant life to grow and eventually - maybe a few million years - to create enough O2 to allow surface living unprotected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>