Human space habitats

instesting hypothesis, and fairly accurate; but your willingness to 'sacrifice' a sizeable portion to the 'project' (" That way we can expect some survivers, even if more than half of the habitat is destroyed.") is obviously unacceptable.
I would suggest working on a method of protecting the colony from space junk is a more urgent problem, than you suggest.

[and in such a 'basic' construct, methods of 'storage' would become an important design challenge.]

Most of the man made space junk is in low Earth orbit or GEO sychronous orbit, so the earliest habitats are vulnerable. My guess is habitats at L1 are not significantly vulerable to present human space junk. The hazard from natural projectiles will be significant nearly everywhere closer to the sun than Jupiter in the solar system. The cost of protecting habitats will be greater than protecting all of Earth, as habitats will be vulnerable to even millimeter size projectiles which burn up every few seconds in Earth's outer atmosphere. My guess is the only practical way to prevent violent death in space is not go to space. I'm not sure advanced technology can even halve the hazard, but of course we should try. Present electrostatic shields and man made magnetic shields are so ineffective, they have not even been tested significantly in space.
I agree, storage is an important consideration. If the habitat is to survive the extinction of all humans on Earth, a century of essential supplies are needed aboard. This will provide a large mass to reduce the radiation hazard and micrometeorite hazard. The larger rooms which regularly have humans need to be close to self sufficient as adjacent rooms could be at vacuum for weeks following worst case disasters. Rooms that frequently have people should have a space suit, even though it is likely death will occur before the space suit can be put on fully. Perhaps the more capable inhabitants should take turns wearing a space suit in case of disaster without warning. Neil

Neil, but how will this help us protect the future from the Terminators that are going to be sent back to kill off our race?



...I'm sorry, but what makes you think that future humans will live in zero or close to zero gravity? Experimentation has already shown that humans CANNOT healthily live in zero gravity for long durations.

By the way, "free-fall" implies gravity.

If you are referring to overpopulation of the Earth...that's a resource issue, not a space issue, so that would not necessitate living in space bubbles.

So, you must be talking about scientific expeditions? And why would a large percentage of the human population be involved in scientific expeditions? They wouldn't.

If humans were to set up space colonies for large numbers of people, they would undoubtedly not be anti-gravity, because it is so easy and efficient to simulate gravity in space, and because our bodies would by very weakened and there would be a whole host of health issues related to anti-gravity life.



Are you for real? Do you think that the goverment operates this way, they just think of some wacky idea and then invest billions of dollars and peoples lives? It doesn't sound like you have got any technical reasons for supporting this idea...you have not even mentioned what materials these bubbles would be built out of, but you do mention "blowing" them which suggests inflating them with some kind of gas...although that doesn't really follow with the rest of your explanation.

I'm sorry...but you have just come up with something that sounds cool, without having done any engineering research.



Where are the calculations of meteorites and material properties to support these conclusions? And the oxygen...did you just make this up, without any calculations?

Re: Human space habitats


My recollection is that humans are more in danger from secondary radioactivity (from the habitat becoming radioactive) than from actual solar radiation. Except for solar flares, of course, which I don't think your design addresses.

We won't live forever, period. The sun will have it's nova (or phase where it loses energy and burns out), and we'll all be wiped out. Energy sources nearby are relatively far away, and we won't have the energy or the resources to travel that far or fast. It's just too much energy and resources--it's so astronomical that it would become too dangerous to control. Even science is limited. The amount you put in a reaction is the same amount you get out--no more, no less. At least to my knowledge. Oh, don't worry, that's not going to happen until another few billion or so years.

Oh, something else I'd like to ask: has anyone ever tried putting plants in a spaceship to see if it could produce enough oxygen for people to use? Would you need a lot of plants or would you need the right growing conditions? Would phytoplankton work too?

the LaGrainge points are more gravitationally 'comfortable', but just as exposed to externally orbiting microscopic solids, and radiation.

[try using a 'box' of some sort; even a retrofit to the bubble.]

NASA's Advanced Life Support Website



"When humans embark on long duration missions such as the establishment of bases on the Lunar surface or travel to Mars for exploration, they will continue to need food, water and air. For these long duration missions it may not be economical or practical to resupply basic life support elements from Earth. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the space community will need to develop systems to purify their water supply, regenerate oxygen and remove undesirable components of the air. A life support system that would perform these regenerative functions is included in the goals of the NASA Advanced Life Support Program. Such a system would be a closed loop system in which the growth of crop plants would contribute to the life support functions. The natural function of plants would provide food and contribute to water purification, air revitalization and even the processing of waste materials. All systems would have to operate under the restrictions of minimizing volume, mass, energy, and labor.

Research on human life support began in the 1950's with oxygen regeneration using algae. NASA's interest in such systems became more focused in the late 1970's in order to support long-term space missions. Since that time, the Advanced Life Support Program at NASA has examined growing plants for food and oxygen regeneration, and the use of physico-chemical and biological methods to process waste into usable resources. At the Johnson Space Center a number of tests have been completed in which human test subjects were included to determine the efficiency, reliability, and effectiveness of regenerable systems for long duration missions."

Have they tried phytoplankton? I only ask because most of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton, so either there are a lot of them, seeing that they live in the ocean, or they're more efficient at producing oxygen.

I did not investigate the site in-depth. I googled "life-support plant oxygen."

I agree with stuh: A lot of technical advancement is needed before a significant percentage of Earth's humans can survive off planet, We need to start with what we can do soon, if we hope ever to have capability to have millions of humans living off Earth. I think tiny habitats below the surface of asteroids are possible, but high risk, in less than a decade.
The concentric spheres plan awaits the right material to blow the bubbles from and a means to move a few million tons of stuff from Earth's surface to the construction site in space. Neil

Wow, everyone made one to several good points. I suppose there are several million considerations. Two+ tests on Earth indicated that we can make some of the oxygen needed from algae, photoplankton and other green plants. We need to invent the material from which the giant bubbles will be blown. One ton of an oxygen/nitrogen mixture may be enough to blow hundreds of bubbles as the pressure outside the bubbles is essentially zero. A means to make the bubbles strong is needed to allow them to be cut and assembled. A further strengthening is needed after assembly. The material needs to let most of the light useful for photosynthesis in, without letting air escape. We have not done large scale photosynthesis experiments in space because the material is not available and may never be.
Stuh is correct: approximately zero gravity relative to the habitat is called free fall. There is some evidence free fall is unhealthy, but we have not exhausted the possibilities. We may end up acccepting that colonists are un-healthy and will be cripples if they return to Earth. Artificial gravity makes photosynthesis more difficult and docking and communication and astronomy etc. If it is done by a tether between two habitats, failure of the tether is dangerous. Neil

Stuh is asking (I think) about time travelers from Earth's future coming to exterminate all humans. They may overlook a few of us if there are hundreds of human habitats scattered about our solar system. A single habitat, might successfully repopulate Earth, even if the colonists are cripples on Earth's surface, their children born from stored Earth embryos could thrive in one g of gravity. Neil

you're living in a fantasy

I agree with merlin: Secondary radiation is a problem. Secondary radiation produced by the first layer will typically be absorbed by the 2nd or third layer. A small portion of the primary radiation fails to react with the first and second layer, so the secondary radiation is produced by the 3d and 4th layer and absorbed by the people in the 4th and 5th layer. Stuff of any kind in the outer rooms sometimes behaves like additional layers.
Impact of very fast micrometeorites heats matter to plasma temperatures, so radiation is produced: Occasionally (rarely?) very hard radiation which can produce secondary radiation. I don't think radioactive isotopes formed in the structure and supplies has been an important problem so far, but it will be, if radiation and/or very fast impacts increase greatly and/or the habitat is otherwise usable for more than a century.
Several decades in space may halve average life expectancy, but a sufficient percentage will likely be able to produce healthy children during child baring years.
Oxygen partial pressure at sea level is 210 millibars. Some of the climbers of Mount Everest survived and recovered their health and mental faculties after several days at an average of less than 100 millibars oxygen partial pressure. Perhaps humans can be genetically modified to tolerate even lower oxygen partial pressure, as strength of materials will become a major engineering problem for large spheres or cylinders in space if we stay with the 750 millibars of air = 200? millibars of oxygen currently used in space craft. Lower initial pressure also reduces the injury caused by sudden decompression. Neil

as a source of literary background Arthur C. Clark's "Rama" series is quite a good description of 'space arks'.

A little off topic...
Ironically enough all of this life support technology and so on may end up being more useful for earth bound humans rather than ones in space. If the world is ever struck by a nuclear/biological catastrophe, ice age or the complete deterioration of the ozone layer (or something else that destroys our ability to trust our outside environment), all of this technology would become very, very valuable.

The irony is that this is much more likely and practical than habitats in space. Especially when considering how damaging living in zero gravity is for the human body. I won't even bother getting into other more important (for those in charge) factors, like money. If a human in space dies, it's a tragedy (media coverage). If a space probe blows up, who cares other than the ones paying for it? So, which do you think requires more accuracy and more back up and safety systems? Which would be easier and cheaper to produce and recover from mistakes? Therefore, which is not only the cheaper way to learn, but the way that could include more people into this (hopefully) noble endeavor?

And with quantum computers (and beyond) being developed, wouldn't it be far more reasonable to use these emerging technologies to produce highly efficient human habitats, (which used on a world-wide scale could command a severe change to the staggering amount of waste our 21st century world produces) and simply develop realistic virtual reality control systems which could allow people to simply log into a probe droid near the moon (for example) and for all intents and purposes actually BE there with no travel time, expense, or tricky calculations to worry about? Not to mention the astronauts wouldn't have to be physically fit, allowing the super intelligent () scientists to do the (ie:) moon research themselves, AND they can go home to their families on weekends.

I suppose it's not as glamorous as sending an actual MAN to the moon, but a clean world, saved lives, and 1/10th the cost of space research could very well turn into a glamorous world for many, and not just one lucky person.

Besides, hasn't anyone else realized that colonizing space is probably the dumbest thing we could do at the moment? Take away all rational impossibility of actually finding a planet, and assume that we do...why would you expect we treat it any differently than our current one? ESPECIALLY with the psychological impact of knowing that we can just run to the next planet after we ruin the new one we've found.

It's that whole 'learn from your mistakes or repeat them' thing.

But hey, what do I know? I'm nobody.

Oh yeah, and these stupid virtual reality robot things I was talking about, a bit of a detour to develop those but then couldn't we also use those for deep sea missions (doing whatever), or as mining droids, and in other situations where putting a human being is not only dangerous, but cruel?

Of course, they could also be used by a secret military army to destroy nations, or take over the world, etc. Pretty hard to stop well trained military soldiers that, if killed, come back as an upgraded model...no retraining required...;-p

okay, okay.
/rant

Hi Aro, welcome to www.able2know.com All that is good thinking. Brainstorming occasionally proves valuable for quite different purposes, as does actually building things that prove not functional. We developed excellent air recycling for nuclear submarines 50 years ago, which was improved upon for the space shuttle and ISS = International space station, both of which recycle 99% ? of the air and water.
I agree we should be building pilot program habitats on Earth to contend with future failure of Earth's eccosystems. Failure may occur with very little warning. I only know of two biosphere experiments, but several may be in progress in secret.
Unless there is lots of secret technology, we can only send perhaps 1000 humans to colonys in our solar system the rest of this century. Perhaps by next century most of us will have learned to be less wasteful. Moving millions of humans off planet (except as sperm and embryos) will likely be impractical even in the 22nd century. Neil

Thank you for the welcome, Neil. This is a very interesting web site, and I'm glad I've stumbled upon it.

99% recycle rate? That's quite impressive. Does that also include water consumed by humans? I assume it does, as I believe astronauts urinate in their suits, which is then recycled somehow. If and how, I do not know.

I wouldn't doubt for a minute that there are a lot of secret biosphere experiments today, as well as many from the past. I believe the United States alone has built a few bomb shelters in mountains to protect the president and other important officials in case of a nuclear war in the 50's and 60's, and obviously technology like that would continue to be developed in secret. If it were known, everyone would want in on it, and while it may be effective it is not capable to protect the entire population of the planet.

Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that sending a few thousand humans off the earth in case of a disaster would really be 'saving' anything. perhaps you could call it 're-seeding', but indubitably an incident as devastating as the destruction of all human life on the planet would kind of be a flat line to what we now know the human race to be.

Everything about who we are today would be lost, and while perhaps you may have saved bits of our genetic code, who we are today is a result of our environment, our culture, our art, our morality, religions, beliefs, and the clashes between differences of opinions, as well as our biological make up.

I mean, have you ever seen a sunrise in your life? Or an awesome thunderstorm? Well, would you say that you would be a different person if you've never seen any of these things? Or knew what it was like to jump in a giant body of water for nothing other than fun? All these things would change everything about us if removed. I challenge that we wouldn't even recognize the people who would eventually recolonize the planet, and therefore are we really rebuilding ourselves, or something completely different?

So, I suppose my point is, if you wish to 'save the world', then you will have to do it before the world is destroyed. After that, you can only hope to begin a new world, modeled after what you believed the old one was.

It will simply be a different world, a different society, and a different race from that point onward.

I sincerely hope we never have to walk that path, but I look at all the McDonalds, and KFC's around and sometimes I think that at best it's just wishful thinking. While we may have good intentions in our hearts, it is those that do not that often find themselves in positions of great power -- because they are willing to feed absolute garbage to nations, simply for personal profit.

Still, as a human being I am never relieved from the challenge of trying against all odds. If I were, then this reality would become meaningless.

Edit: OH, and one more thing. You're one hundred percent correct, Neil. Often times we learn the most from complete failures, and mistakes, and in no way am I suggesting that we should never take a step into difficult terrain. This also doubles as a reaffirmation for why 're-seeding' the planet is the wrong way of 'saving' it, as if we destroy ourselves only to return without ever being able to learn from our mistakes, how will we ever do anything other than repeat them?

Hi Aro: I agree, far better to avert the disaster, but reseeding is perhaps better than total extinction of all humans. Yes the reseeded humans would be much different than present humans, but then most of us are quite different than our great-grandparents. In both cases some of the changes are improvements. The sunsets would return after the reseeding, and so would much of the magnificent scenery.
We can, perhaps, play in a room half full of water in freefall, but it would be dangerous and quite a different experience. I picture scuba mouth pieces here and there to get a breath if you can't catch a significantly large bubble of air somewhere in the room. Neil