The Technologies We Need to Thrive in Space...

Great Debates
1

I wrote this in my blog the other day, and I wanted some criticisms on the ideas I’ve expressed:

"Think about it. The next major stage in the evolution of humans will be fostered by the spreading out into the solar system. It will be a daunting task, given the immensity of the solar system, and the harshness of living in space. But it will happen. The next 50-100 years will be full of baby steps in that direction. It won’t be until 200 years from now that we will have the accumulated technology to not only get into space easily, but to stay there indefinitely.

As we speak, aero-space companies are developing cheaper ways to deliver people into orbit. The technology to land on the surface of another planetary body and setting up a temporary habitat is easily within our grasp right now. What’s left is the ability to maintain that habitat perpetually, without the need for continual supplies from Earth. We’re taking steps in developing environmental encapsulation technology, but as can be seen by the failure of Biosphere 2, we have a very long way to go.

A way to exploit cheap, reliable, and relatively safe energy sources is the next technology that needs to be developed. They need to be sources that can deliver massive amounts of energy, and are either transportable, or can be set up easily. The development of portable fusion reactors seems to be the prime candidate for this. It will take many more decades before we start seeing reactors that give out far more energy than it takes to create the reaction, and many more before we see them come down in size. But if it can be done, and it can be made into a portable design, you’ve just knocked over another obstacle towards conquering the system.

The next problem to tackle is the problem of food. This technology may take longer than our lifetimes, but it will be worthwhile. The central problem is that food needs to be grown, or raised, and that takes time. Time you may not have when beginning to set up a space colony. The technology needed here is a way to create food in a dramatically shorter period of time than it would take to develop in a farm setting. How do we do this? It is speculation at this point, but I think the burgeoning field of gen-gineering will yield the answer. I can foresee a time in the future where colonists, arriving for the first time to their new homes, will derive their food not from supplies that may be months old and vacuum sealed, but rather from tissue clone vats that produce nothing but animal tissue and vegetable matter at an accelerated rate. It seems digusting to our sensibilities now, but I think it is a far more elegant solution than having to haul around your pigs and waiting to harvest your crops. Later on, if the colonies thrive, there may the willpower and desire to create true farms, and to raise animals for food.

Another problem to overcome is the detrimental effect of traveling in space. This one is difficult right now because frankly there is very little that one can do to overcome the problems of being weightless for a very long period of time, and also the massive doses of radiation inherent with space travel. I don’t know how to solve this one, other that to travel in a giant centrifuge and developing materials that repel radioactive particles. This is a crucial technology to develop, however, if we have any hope of being a major presence in the System.

One technology that I believe is only a matter of time in coming is the portable materials factory. Imagine a device that allows you to create complicated construction materials on the fly from resources you can find in any planetary body. This portable factory would probably have an emphasis on the processing of metals, but it could be used for creating a wide range of plastics, glass, fabrics, and other materials that would be useful to colonists trying to establish a home.

A technology that is overlooked sometimes is the refinement of social psychology. 200 years from now when colonization is in full force, you won’t have caravans of a few hundred moving to new place. You’re going to have thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of people all crammed inside a ship for months at a time, and very little to do other than wait. Once at the destination, it will be long hours of hard work and very little rest for several months afterwards. The feeling of entrapment and the oppresivness of the dark will strain people quite a bit. How to overcome this so that people don’t kill themselves before a thriving colony can be established? I don’t know. There are a few avenues to consider, but I fear they would be highly unethical to our current sensibilities. Lets just say that I beleive that one may need to develop incredibly motivating ideas in order for the colonists to maintain their sanity. Something that fosters an overpowering sense of community. Something that makes people function more as a collective, and less as an individual. Something that has the possibility of motivating people too much. I’ve talked about what that could be in a previous journal entry. I have no doubts that the first successful independent groups out in space will be religious fundamentalists, ideological fanatics, and racial purity groups.

I can’t of anything else one would need to truly survive and thrive out there. When we as a species can truly say that we have developed all these technologies, and made them reliable, then can the next age of the human species begin. The next age will be a time when humans colonize most of the planetary bodies of the solar system. And not just planets and moons either. The asteroid belt, I think, will be where the major chunk of human presence in the system will be. Each asteroid could potentially be a community. And for a very long time these communites will have the option of withdrawing completely, and disappearing from view. Imagine pockets of humanity completely isolated and empowered with self-determination. Imagine what kind of social diversity would spring up from this. Imagine how humans would change physically, as these pockets remain genetically isolated for possibly thousands of years. Kim Stanley Robinson called it “The Diaspora”. I call it cool."

The debate here is whether you think there are other technologies that need to be added to this list, or if the ideas expressed here are way off base. I’m willing to admit I may be wrong.

2

The important event of man’s walking on the Moon happened just 35 years ago. We’re still riding the emotional high of the notion that space is where we’re headed. I wonder how long it will take, but I firmly believe that over the next 100 years or so, everyone will have realized that it will never happen; Earth is the only place humans will ever live.

3

Even if the technologies I’ve describe actually do come to pass? I happen to think there are signifigant portions of the population who wouldn’t mind going out there and living in total isolation. Add to that the silly notions of Manifest Destiny, corporate greed, and simple land-grabbing. I think you should have a full on rush to the belt in short order.

4

I wouldn’t be so quick to call Biosphere 2 a failure. I’m a little biased as I worked there nearly seven years but the initial two year enclosure experiment was unprecidented. There were unforseen problems, and many that should have been forseen, but eight people managed to survive two years on th food they grew inside and no one else has ever come close to that. I’ll agree that it does point out how far we have to go for technology usable in space.

5

I completely agree. I should have re-worded that a little bit better, since no properly carried out science experiment is ever truly “a failure”. It did point out, however, that many more experiments need to be performed before we can confident enough to implement the technology “out there”.

6

We’re already on the best possible space ship. The best use of our technology would be to ensure that it stays that way, and we needn’t resort to lifeboats.

If its information you crave, then send mechanical probes in all directions. That way, instead of going to one interesting place at a time, you go to all of them at once!

7

But see, I don’t think the jump to space will be fueled by scientific curiosity alone. It will be fueled by ideas far more visceral, like isolation, self-determination, greed, and ideological supremecy. Ideas that have worked to motivate people to move elsewhere for centuries.

Besides, the central debate here is not whether we should go to space, but rather what tools we need in order to successfully thrive in space. The “why” is not the focus.

8

I agree with Bob Park:

“When eight “biospherians,” dressed in Star-Trek uniforms, marched into their gleaming 3-acre terrarium in 1991 and closed the air lock, it was hailed as a bold experiment. They vowed to remain for two years, recycling water, air and waste and growing their own food. It didn’t take that long to get an answer. Within weeks, the crystal-clear “ocean” turned to slime. Biospherians were soon gasping for air; then the crops failed. Texas oil billionaire Edward Bass, who had bankrolled Biosphere-2, turned to Columbia University to find a legitimate science use. But the original research question was already answered: Far larger and more elaborate than anything that could be transported to Mars, Biosphere-2 could not sustain eight humans. Columbia is pulling out, but Biosphere-2 could still be useful. Anyone who proposes a space colony could be sent there to live for two years.”

9

Of course that supposes that a colony setup should be self contained. If the colony exists in a place where environment materials can be accessed why not use them?

Mars is the easier example. Given a power supply and some hydrogen you can use 19th century chemistry to acquire oxygen and water. Now, should you build an initial colony with no seed stock of hydrogen? Of course not, that would be like sending colonists to North American with a saw, a hand full of nails and best wishes. Plows, seeds and live stock went and then the colonists exploited the local resources to increase their self sufficiency.

I’d place improved ultra thin polymer membranes, solar furnaces, and nuclear rockets (fission first) as key technologies. I’d also focus on the technologies needed for a space elevator. Mind you I don’t see that happening for a while.

10

you forgot to mention spaceships.

11

If we had a cheap way of delivering payloads to space, I don’t see a reason why creating spaceships large enough to hold thousands of people would be terribly difficult. And the ships could travel “slow boat to the belt” style since the other technologies involved would allow for people to exist in space for months at a time.

Of course, speeding up the process may be a worthwhile technology to pursue, but not critical in my opinion.

12

Well, one way to avoid some of the detrimental effects of space travel is to reduce the time doing it. So, speeding up the process might not be quite so irrelevent. Especially since shielding form radiation will either require material (heavy) or energy (heavy fuel).

Have you ever considered the possiblity that much of this technology could be developed here on earth? Exploring the oceans, for instance.

13

Oh I completely agree that mosty of these technologies don’t require us being in space!

14

I don’t see people living in space until getting to space gets a whole lot cheaper. Probably require some kind of anti gravity drive or some other exotic form of propulsion. Right now, it’s just too damn expensive and that outweighs any possible benefit other than bragging rights.

And 1920s style Death Rays…got to have Death Rays.

15

I’ve thought for a long time that developing the human habitation technology should be done terrestrially. Some of it may need work in space. As you mentioned the absence of gravit does add a few wrinkles. However, the vast majority could be developed here. This has the added benifit of possibly improving our ability to live more harmoniously with the environment. That is we’d certainly need to develop long term self sufficient power sources (solar, thermal) and storage technologies worlds (heh!:)) ahead of what we have now.

Meanwhile, however, vehicle development could continue by sending robots to other worlds and elsewhere in the solar system.

I really think that if we wanted to we could build a colony on mars (habitats, energy producing facilities, and perhas even water and oxygen producing plants) completely through the use of robots. That would leave the development of capsules capable of actually carrying humans to mars farther off into the future.

Anyway, nice diversionary discussion. Thanks.

16

Hibernaculae.

If I can’t sleep throughout the multi-month voyage, I’m gonna get really bored.

17

Here are my suggestions:

  1. ** A really cheap way of getting off the Earth**. The OP focuses mainly on what we need once we’re in space; but realisticly it’ll never happen unless the cost of getting into low earth orbit falls by a factor of between 20 & 100. Potential technologies are: a rugged cheap expendible rocket that can be mass-produced for minimum cost; a hypersonic sub-orbital spaceplane; and space tethers.

  2. ** Environmental encapsulation** , to use the OPs term. Indispensible, in fact.

  3. ** Power generation**. A fusion reactor would be a godsend. Almost as good would be high-efficiency, cheap to produce and ultra-lightweight solar cells.

  4. ** Hibernation technology** thanx to Enola Straight. If journeys will take months or years, it would be extremely helpful to sleep through it and use minimal food, water and oxygen.

  5. ** A practical way of reducing carbon dioxide to carbon and oxygen** Colonies can use plants to produce food and oxygen, but smaller ships and stations could really use some device that would run on electricity and directly break down carbon dioxide. It’s absurd to have to provide oxygen as an expendable.

  6. ** Genetically engineered plants and animals**. As the OP pointed out, keeping barnyard animals alive would be something of a luxery in space. Your base food technology should be some kind of alge (presumably engineered for nutrition and flavor), that can grow on sunlight and our wastes. Cloned meat would also be a possibility. If the colonists want wood, a super-fast growing tree with high-quality wood would be usefull. Terraforming might require some sort of engineered organisms to do much of the work.

  7. ** High-temperature superconductors** A lot of things like magnetic radiation shielding or stellar-medium propulsion will require superconductivity to be practical. We really need a 400-Kelvin superconductor.

  8. ** Robotics**, which I use as a catchall term for everything from autonomous rovers to automated factories. Machines don’t need atmosphere and are expendable. We’re doing that already.

18

Sure, but there are some people who believe we’re actually on the Titanic, running at full speed in the fog.
And I can’t say I totally disagree with this view. (Only I don’t think we’ll have time to use the lifeboats if we hit the iceberg. So I hope there won’t be one on our way)

19

We may not need room temp. superconductors in space.

Isn’t the airless void something like 200 below zero in the shade?

20

I think the single most significant step toward colonizing the solar system will happen when the technologies develop to the point that corporations can feasibly turn a greedy eye on extractive mining of the asteroid belt or other profit-seeking venture. If private money gets poured hand over fist into the effort, with the prospect that it’s possible to become rich by doing it, it’ll happen in no time. We just need to get over little things like that big ol’ first gravity step first.