Conference noted::sf

    Re .0:
    
    Mars and the asteroids are surely far enough away to survive attempted
    strikes by any of today's weapons, but I think the Moon and the
    Earth-Moon Langrange points are also far enough away, even with
    improvements in the capabilities of today's weapons.  Wouldn't it
    take missiles days to reach those points?  I think that would be
    plenty of time for even a small defense system to take care of the
    missiles.
    
    Next, for closer colonies, perhaps in geosynchronous orbit or lower,
    how are the effects of weapons different?  I think shock waves and
    radiation dangers will be drop off much more quickly as distance
    from the blast increases in space than on Earth.  The big problem
    will be EMP wiping out computers, which I am sure colonies will
    require to survive for some time to come.
    
    Can anybody else offer some information on this topic?
    
    
    				-- edp

    It's interesting to contemplate the "impact" on an enclosure in
    a vacuum when its orbit intersects that of a (relatively) small
    quantity of, say, ball bearings.  Or maybe even a couple of cylinders
    of cluster bombs, choke ful' HE bomblets...
    
    And, they're relatively _cheap_ to put there; even geosynchronous
    or Lagrange point orbits.
    
    Dwight

    There are no "shock waves" in a vacuum.  There may be a "blast front",
    and I would expect its propagation speed to be greater than in an
    atmosphere.  I would expect the bulk of the effects to be radiation
    related, both thermal and ionizing.  Strictly speaking this is a
    nit, but a "shock wave" is a consequence of something moving through
    a medium at greater than the local speed of sound (i.e., speed of
    propagation of pressure waves), and an explosion in a vacuum has
    to make its own medium.  The blast front is not so much a "pressure
    wave" as a "density wave".  I'm really in over my head at this point.
    Does anybody know any facts about explosions in vacuum?
    
    len.
    

    Assuming that space colonies could be built far enough out to be
    safe from attack would they be able to be self-sufficient enough
    to survive being cut off from earth? You'd have to have an awful
    lot of available resources from somewhere to keep an ecosystem going
    and keep people well fed and healthy.

    If Earth bludgeons itself into insensibility in a few days, the
    colony might be able to make supply raids, assuming they had
    shuttles or whatnot that could land and take off in hostile or
    no-tech territory.  Eventually, they could build up to a self-
    sustaining ecology.
    
    Or they could start out big enough to be self-sustaining.  It depends
    on how advanced, entrenched, and numerous these hypothetical colonies
    would be when the hypothetical attack comes.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .4, .5:
    
    The deep-space colonies would _have_ to be built for self-sufficiency;
    the available energies would require Hohmann orbits that would take
    fractional -- or full -- years from launch to arrival.  Therefore,
    they'd have to have sufficient adaptability to ride out local
    emergencies.
    
    On the close-in stuff: a space satatiuon would be more vulnerable
    than a lunar colony that could be buried _deep_ within the Moon,
    and on the backside, too!.
    
    On EMPs:  I doubt they'd be a serious factor for anything designed
    to take large solar flares into account.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
      

    Re .3:
    
    Something which swells and dies away, as a blast front, is a wave.
    And the blast front also qualifies as a "violent pulsating disturbance
    or reaction", which makes it a shock wave.
    
    But of all the problems so far, I think the many-small-objects
    possibility is the worst one.  I've heard it would not be too difficult
    to destroy objects in low orbit this way, but how would the difficulty
    increase for objects farther away?  The increased distance means
    less benefit from orbital speed, so the objects can no longer be
    placed in an opposing orbit and let to travel on their way; they
    must be aimed more carefully.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    re .7 - this is picking nits on nits, but "violent pulsating
    disturbance or reaction" sounds like a sloppy dictionary definition of
    shock wave.  My DEC-issue dictionary says "A large amplitude compression
    wave, such as that produced by an explosion, caused by supersonic
    motion of a body in a medium."  You can't have a compression wave
    in a vacuum.  The only medium available is the gas/plasma produced
    by the explosion itself, and as I said earlier, I don't know enough
    about explosions in vacuo to say whether or not the expanding gasses
    could themselves support a shock wave.  "Shock wave" has a well
    defined technical meaning - the medium can't propagate a compression
    wave faster than its local speed of sound, and that's what creates
    the "shock".  Not all waves are shocks, and "pulsating" and "reaction"
    are irrelevant to the definition of a shock wave.  A "high amplitude
    compression wave" is certainly a "violent disturbance", but not
    all violent disturbances are shocks.  A blast front is not itself
    a shock wave, but it may create one in a suitable medium.  Any shock
    waves in the explosion-produced medium would have to be behind the
    blast front; the blast front can propogate in a vacuum at any speed,
    but any shock waves are limited to propogating at the local speed
    of sound.
    
    len.
    

    Re .8:
    
    I've compared Webster's to American Heritage in the JOYOFLEX file.
    The people producing American Heritage make too many mistakes.
    
    Also, do not forget that one subset of people (physicists and other
    technical people) using a phrase with a particular meaning does not
    erase the _other_ meanings the phrase has.  Webster's says people
    use the word that way, so I will also use it that way.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    Here is some thinking to support the lessened effects of a blast in
    space.  When a bomb is exploded, I am guessing that parts of the bomb
    are given a great deal of kinetic energy and hurled outward, perhaps as
    gases.  In an atmosphere, the gases hit molecules of air and impart
    their energy to the air.  The result is a sudden transfer of energy to
    the air when then travels away from the explosion at the speed of
    sound.  The thickness of the region, and hence "sharpness" comes
    from the amount of time it takes for the gases to transfer their
    energy to air.  That is, if the transfer is sudden, the thickness
    of the spreading sphere will be small, and the wave will hit anything
    it runs into suddenly.  If the transfer were slower, the wave would
    be felt more gradually.       
    
    In space, there is no such transfer.  The particles thrown away from
    the explosion travel at their own speeds, rather than the speed of
    sound.  Thus the effects do not arrive at objects simultaneously, and
    the farther the particles travel, the more spread apart they become,
    and the less effect they have. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Along the same lines, would debris placed in orbit spread apart enough
    to lessen the danger?  Anybody putting debris in orbit would have to
    either cause the pieces to separate (perhaps with a gentle "explosion")
    to spread them far apart enough to pose a threat, and the spreading
    would continue too far, or put the pieces in orbit individually to
    prevent continued spreading.  Even then, the different orbits might
    separate the debris. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    RE .0
    
      The problem with space colonies surviving a general war is the
    same as the problem with the SDI. Although the current technology
    may or may not be able to distroy a large space station, if the
    state of the art of space flight were advanced enough to build and
    support space colonies it would be advanced enough to attack and
    distroy space colonies.
    
      It would take many years (probably decades) and many billions
    of dollars for either the U.S., the U.S.S.R., or ESA to build a
    space colony. There would be plenty of time for others to come up
    with a method, at far less cost, to blow it up.
    
      George

    Re .12:
    
    You seem to take as a premise that if we can build something, we can
    destroy it more easily than building it.  That premise is not generally
    true.  I doubt it was even considered true before nuclear bombs were
    created.  Colonies in space could easily be like colonies several
    hundred years ago, too far away to attack directly.  How would you
    destroy a colony you couldn't even find?  What if the colony is
    far enough away that your missiles take days to get there, giving
    defense systems plenty of time to take care of them?
    
    
    				-- edp

     If my memory serves me correctly, the English, French, and Spanish
    had many a fight in the colonies. At one time there was a French
    colony in the south. They attempted to attack the Spanish and the
    fleet got caught in a storm. The Spanish mopped up the remaining
    French forces and took over what is now the southern part of
    Florida. The French colony was distroyed.
    
     I don't think that the space colony would be very hard to find. It is
    much easier to track large items in space now than it was to find small
    groups of people in the West back in the 1600's. Not to mention
    the fact that the location of the colony would probably be a well
    known fact. Espcially if it was put there by NASA, the ESA, or both.
    
     As for distroying the space platform, their ABM system would suffer
    the same problem that ABM systems suffer now. With out a treaty
    like SALT II, an enemy could build many more war heads than the
    space colony could expect to intercept. They could also deploy
    decoys to confuse the Space Colony ABM system. All of this would
    be much cheaper than the cost of the Colony.
    
     I guess that I still feel that negociation is the best way to prevent
    a battle anywhere.
    
     George
                                                                        

    Re .14:
    
    A space colony could easily be made difficult to find, once it leaves
    the vicinity of Earth.  The Solar System, or the universe for that
    matter, is a big place. 
    
    Next, the limitations of Earthly anti-missile systems won't apply in
    space.  Earthly systems need to find a target, make a decision about
    it, and deal with it in as little as thirty seconds.  That imposes a
    strict limitation on the number of missiles each component of the
    defense system can handle -- it's got to get all the missiles in the
    few minutes they are launched.  When that time is expanded to hours or
    days, the capacity of the defense system is increased correspondingly,
    but the capacity of offensive weapons remains the same or decreases.
    
    We also might expect that space colonies could easily be as far
    from each other as from their origins, unlike colonies a few hundred
    years ago.
    
    I don't think any amount of negotiation will ever eliminate bad
    people, stupid people, or accidents.
    
    
    				-- edp

    The emphasis of this note has been on the question of whether a
    space colony would be safe from a missile attack. There is a far more
    powerful weapon that has destroyed many cities - Hunger. I find
    it unlikely that any space colony would be able to survive a long
    period of time cut off entirely from supplies from the earth. The
    logistics of setting up a truely self sustaining ecology in space
    are incredible. (and do we really understand our earthly ecology
    and our own physiology well enough to be sure we had provided every-
    thing we would need to survive?) Could mines on the moon or asteriods
    really provide adequate raw materials to grow plants, manufacture
    medicines, and fabricate repair materials? (Especially given a state
    of war?) The long terms effects of radiation and weightlessness
    are additional problems. Could space colonists raise children
    succesfully to agument their numbers? 

    Re several above:
    
    On missile attacks, the environment of space is _harsh_.  Building
    something that in the case of a colony on an airless body would
    have to withstand natural radiation, bombardment by meteors, and
    temperature extremes, some manmade augmentations mightn't make that
    much difference.
    
    Re .16: 
    
    This depends upon how you mean "colony."  By all previous discussions
    I've read on the subject, space colonies were supposed to be self-
    sufficient.  Balanced ecosystems.  If you destroy a colony before
    it's _established_, that's one thing.  A fully established colony
    is something else altogether.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    As I recall the plans, space colonies are usually supposed to be
    pretty self-supporting in the first place; the logistics of supplying
    a permanent colony might be even worse than those of making it
    self-sustaining.
    
    I think we already know how to grow food and recycle water and air,
    though it might be difficult to sustain the balancing act indefinitely.
    (We DON'T know all the complications that might arise.  But then,
    we never do.)  Radiation is a problem, but we can get the gravity by
    spinning.
    
    Earl Wajenberg
    
    Earl Wajenberg

  Whether or not a colony survives would depend on a couple of things.

  Does it get attacked before or after the nuclear exchange on Earth?
  If before, then my guess is that it would be destroyed, even if buried
  deep in the moon as Steve suggested.  I really do think that anything
  that can be found can be destroyed -- all you need is a big enough
  H-bomb.  Intercepting one probably wouldn't be easy, either; to attack
  a space colony, the missile need not boost all the way to the target.
  It could be "black" in the visible and radar frequencies and thus just
  sidle up to the colony (or drop quietly onto the moon, pretending to
  be a meteor) before it goes kablooie.  And even if the colony could
  stop a few, defensive systems can be overwhelmed by numbers.

  On the other hand, would flatlanders who just survived a nuclear war
  be interested in a space colony?  Only if they perceived the colony
  as a threat.   (They might also hope that the colony could provide
  succor but given the valid questions about the colony's self-sufficiency,
  this seems unlikely.)  In this case, whether a colony in free-fall
  would depend on the technical capabilities of the survivors.

  Unless the colony can be moved (isn't this very unlikely?), and is
  willing to maintain silence in the electromagnetic spectrum, it can
  be found.  Again, if it can be found, and *if* the survivors on earth
  can reach orbit with an H-bomb, the colony can be destroyed.

  JP

    re .17
    
    The assumption that a space colony will be fully self sufficient
    once it is set up is exactly what I am questioning. This is a major
    assumption and not a valid one in terms of the near future. I am
    sure that the first space colonies we set up will not be self
    sufficient and it will be many, many years in the future before
    they are. The first American colonies imported pottery, metals,
    livestock, plants etc. to give a few examples, for many many years
    before being able to rely on their own resources  and they were
    in a place where raw materials were readily available (at least
    in comparision). So if we are talking about the ability of space
    colonies in the near future (i.e. the next 100 years or so) to 
    survive a war then supplies will be a very major problem. (One
    reason for the failure of the roanoke colony was the failure of
    the supply lines.) To state that they will be self-sufficient by
    definition is really begging the question.

      Just a few thoughts on the timming of things. It seems to take
    NASA and the U.S. Congress about 15 years to fund and build large
    space systems. The best timming for building a space colony might
    be something like the following:
    
      1965 First Saturn V
      1980 STS
      1995 First Space Staion
      2010 First Deep Space Station
      2025 First Large Deep Space Base
      2040 First Dependent Space Colony
      2065 First self sufficient Space Colony
    
      If it was build by NASA its location could be found in Aviation
    Week and Space Technology Mag. as well as many other sources. It
    would cost trillions of dollars which would come from the goverment
    justified by using it for a combination of industry, defense, and
    science. Everyone would know where it was because everyone would
    want to use it for something.
    
      If SDI goes forward, the eastern block nations will probably also
    come up with a space based laser system. Its development will probably
    go as follows
    
      2015 SDI and Eastern Block counterpart become active.
      2030 2nd generation laser system
      2045 3rd generation laser system with deep space capability.
    
      If a war starts in the 2060 to 2100 time frame it is unlikely
    that the space colony will be attacked from earth with a technology
    that is 100 years old. It would probably be attacked from a near by
    3rd generation space based defense systems.
    
      George

    Re .20
    
    The New World colonies may have been slower to become self-sufficient
    that necessary.  The imperial powers practiced a policy called
    "mercantilism," under which the colonies were FORBIDDEN to produce
    for themselves those items the mother country wished to sell them.
    (The colonies paid for the processed good in raw materials.)  This
    was part of the motive behind the Boston Tea Party.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .22
    Agreed - but they also didn't have the technology at first at least
    to make a lot of things even tho they had the raw materials. I remember
    at Plymouth plantation for example the cups all had multiple handles
    to allow them to be passed more easily without dropping because
    they did not have pottery works and new cups had to come from England.
    The space colony would have the technology but lack adequate raw materials.
    Another issue that would affect survival would be psychological
    - the isoloation of a small group completely cut off from home.

    Re self-sufficiency: 

    Promising experiments in creating closed ecological systems have been
    performed on Earth.  The principal problem with creating closed systems
    in space is the small size of current vehicles. 


    Re .19: 

    I think you underestimate the protection afforded by dirt and rock.
    Something buried in the Moon or even the Earth would not be easy to
    destroy.  I don't think the energy of nuclear weapons we have now or
    can foresee building are even a fraction of the energy in the meteors
    that must have formed craters in the Moon.  How deep are those craters?
    I doubt surviving a nuclear blast would require digging as deep as the
    craters are. 
                
    Next, intercepting missiles is very different in space.  Sure, the
    missile can be black, but it's also not going to find its target by
    following terrain.  Once it gets far from Earth, it will not be able to
    navigate accurately enough to hit the colony unless it makes use of an
    active system, such as radar. 

    The "overwhelm with numbers" argument doesn't hold in space, because
    the Earthly advantages of offense are weakened while the advantages of
    defense are increased.  Would missiles be easier to find when not
    firing engines than they are near Earth because the residual heat would
    be more visible against space than against the Earth as background?
    
    Does anybody know how far off Voyager (or was it something else) was
    when it got to the vicinity of Jupiter?


    Re .21: 

    Let's take the assumption the colony will be built with the purpose of
    survival.  Whether it's built by the government or a private group,
    they are not going to publish its location. 

    > It would probably be attacked from a [nearby] 3rd generation space
    > based defense systems. 
                             
    I don't think you realize how big space is.  There is no way we could
    make a system so that any colony would be near a part of the system!
    
    
    Re .23:
    
    Maybe they couldn't make fine pottery and hence took care with it, but
    surely they could make cups without unneeded elegance.  A kiln isn't
    exactly high technology. 


				-- edp

    10,000 is not a small group.
    
    Raw materials is not a problem, given that a colonization and
    exploitation program is in progress.  Postulating that, asteriod
    mining as well as Luna mining would suffice for virtually all
    material needs.
    
    Realize, too, that some extrapolation must be made in the arguments
    concerning survivability.  That has not been done in a number of
    the arguments (somewhat) against the colonies' survival.
    
    Dwight

    ans to .24
    Using Plymouth again for an example - even tho space colonies
    won't have the same problems there will be similar ones - they had
    to rely on England for a long time for simple pottery, not fine
    china, because they had so much else to do they didn't have the
    resources to set up kilns. I still feel that it is overly optimistic
    to assume that everything needed will be available without having
    to rely on earth.                                          
    
    I didn't get to finish my last note about psychological problems,
    even a group of 10,000 people would be under severe stress if cut
    off from earth for long periods of time due to war. Also saying
    that we have promising research on closed ecologies, or space
    medicine still doesn't promise that there won't be totally unforseen
    problems that could kill an isolated colony in situ. Our knowledge
    of biology/ecology is simply not that advanced yet.
    
    However, if no one else wants to discuss the other problems relating
    to survival of a space colony during war, I will bow out gracefully
    and let the rest of you continue your discussion of missles, and
    related subjects. 

    Re .26
    
    ANY kind of space colony, other than the trivial case of a longish
    mission in a Soyuz or a shuttle, is currently an unrealized dream.
    A colony's viability depends on which colony you dream up.  It is
    useless todebate whether or not "a colony" could survive isolation
    or attack or a high inflation rate until you specify the nature
    of the (imaginary) colony.  Then you go on to specify the nature
    of the threat, and maybe discuss whether the threat and the colony
    are compatible possibilities.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    .26
    Agreed. However, the subject of this topic was survial
    of a space colony during a war. Most of the discussion centered
    around missle hits etc. etc. I was attempting, rather unsuccessfully,
    to expand the discusion to other problems that would occur in the
    case of a space colony in a time of war. As I said in .26 if people
    arn't interested in talking about that aspect I'll stop bringing
    it up.                                                       

     I agree with .26. I think that we are discussing different types
    of colonies. I am thinking of the type of colony that might be
    built by NASA and ESA with money from the U.S. and European
    goverments based on the direction that they are taking today.
    
     The trend seems to be toward stations that can be used for
    industrial and scientific work built for as little money as is
    possible (still a lot of money). Plans and locations are always
    public and plans are for many nations to visit and work there
    on a regular basis.
    
     To get a return on the investment in both the industrial and
    scientific sense there would have to be many trips to and from
    the station with a lot of exchange of personal, information,
    and supplies. Even if it were self sufficient, you would still
    want to take the latest widgit built on Earth (by a TRW type
    company) to improve the power supply, do research, build better
    materials, etc.
    
     I think that this would be the type of space platform that would
    benifit most people and it is the most likely to get the money
    to build. Any other ideas on the subject?
    
     George

re: self-sufficiency of colonies

Actually, hardly any part of the Earth is self-sufficient in the 
sense that it produces all its own food and own industrial products.  
If, say, Massachusetts had to feed and clothe itself, its standard of 
living would drop sharply, probably to something like that of the 1600s.
Massachusetts survives by trading its specialties with those of its neighbors,
and so would space colonies.  They would sell solar power satellites 
in return for VAXes (the architecture of '00s!), rather than trying 
to build them by themselves.

Even if a space colony is self-sufficient in food, it cannot be
self-sufficient in technical expertise.  It takes millions of
specialists to run a modern industrial economy.  Think of all the
people needed to just build VAXes, and that's just one component of one
system. In fact, no one country contains all the knowledge about all
the machinery it uses.  No one, for instance, in the United States
knows how to economically build video cassette recorders.  A space 
colony of ten thousand people could not possibly contain the entire 
range of skills.

This would be a big problem for colonies in case of war.  If the 
colony drops below a certain technological level, it is doomed.  Now 
they are getting problems in the mirror control system.  The VAX that 
runs it gets access violations and burns part of the ring.  Who can 
they call?  Maynard has been atomized.  They may have all the manuals 
on microfilm, but they don't have enough spare boards to swap in.  
Even if they can patch VMS or fix broken etch on boards, they won't 
be able to make their own chips.  On Earth you can live without 
computers, but not in space.

The only way that the colonies would be able to survive is if there 
is a major space-going civilization, meaning millions of 
people living off the earth.  Only then would there a wide enough range
of expertise to keep things running.  Space colonies need more than 
just food and air to work - they need knowledge, and that would be in 
short supply after a war.

/jlr

re: defensibility of colonies

A previous note raised the problem of how to detect an incoming missile.
The missile could be radar absorbent, painted black, and kept cool to avoid
radiating infrared.  One thing you could do is put a shell of fine wires
a hundred km out from the colony.  As the missile came in it would break
a wire and get zapped by the laser defenses.  If the wires were spaced
every 10 cm, and were 10 um across, you'd need about 1000 tonnes of aluminum
to build a shell with a 100 km radius.  There would have to be 
openings in the shell to let normal traffic in and out, but those
could be guarded in other ways.   A 10 um wire won't conduct much current,
so every few meters there would be an alarm sensor chip that would
connect by radio with a central controller.  A hundred km should give the lasers
plenty of time to burn up a missile, especially since the lasers can draw
upon the gigawatts of power available to a space colony.

/jlr

PS A nuclear attack upon a space colony is described in one of the Rosinante
books by Alex Gilliand (sp?).  I can't remember which one, since 
they're all part of the same story.  They all have "Rosinante" in the title.
Funny, cynical, and very techie.  Recommended.

  Re: .28

  I'm glad you brought these issues up.  I'm not sure what you mean by
  "self-sufficiency," though.  What I mean by this term is the capability
  to live long enough to worry about things like deficiencies of trace
  elements in the diet.  That is, whether the people in the colony continue
  to breathe for an indefinite time.  I don't think that a discussion of
  imported pottery (or the 21st Century analog of imported pottery) has
  anything to do with self-sufficiency.

  I grant you that loneliness, lack of civilized amenities, and a small gene
  pool all might have a bearing on the survival of the colony.  But suppose
  for a second that the situation in the colony is a great deal better than
  the situation on Earth.  I don't think that's unlikely in the event of a
  nuclear war.  Does it change things if the heretofore "starving" colony is
  now the most comfortable spot in the solar system?

  JP

    What I originally meant by "self-sufficiency" was exactly what
    you mean - availablity of necessary minerals, air, etc. to go on
    living. Previous replies were arguing that the colonies would be
    completely self-sufficient and my examples of the American colonies
    were to point out that in a much friendlier environment
    self-sufficiency was not easily come by. I also agree that knowledge
    and new technology would be crucial to the survival of any space
    colony. There is an awful lot more than just adquate missle defenses
    needed to assure a space colony's survival.

    Hmm ...
    
    Herre we are selling CDROM products; not even counting improvements,
    I can see that an awful lot of sheer _knowledge_ can be imported
    to any colony with little effort.  That takes care of _part_ of
    the "expertise" angle.
    
    Let's also define the following:
    
    A COLONY is something that's reasonably self-sufficient.
    A BASE or OUTPOST is that thing we have befiore a colony takes place.
    
    A base would have it tough.
    A colony would have it easier.
    
    On the psychological aspects.  Recall that _very_ small craft, from
    the time of Columbus, spent a lot of time away from other humans.
    Some small towns are _very_ xenophobic and asre virtually
    self-sufficient.
    
    I can't say it'd be easy, but it would be workable for a colony
    to survive.
    
    Finally, the more the merrier: the more colonies there are throughout
    the solar system, the greater chance _each_ would survive.
    
    Is there any better reason to colonize the solar system?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .26: 

    > I didn't get to finish my last note about psychological problems,
    > even a group of 10,000 people would be under severe stress if cut off
    > from earth for long periods of time due to war. 

    I don't buy that at all; groups of under 10,000 people must represent
    the bulk of human history.  Even today, there are people who live in
    smaller groups, not all of whom receive television or radio broadcasts
    (which, of course, could be simulated if necessary, :-)). 

    > . . . space medicine still doesn't promise that there won't be
    > totally unforseen problems that could kill an isolated colony in situ. 

    That sounds like something out of a television space opera.  It's
    entirely fabricated and very unlikely. 

                                          
    Re .30: 

    Most parts of the Earth today are not self-sufficient because they CAN
    interact with other people, not because they MUST.  Pick any island in
    the middle of the ocean, and consider what it was like not too many
    years ago.  Even the supplies the colonials "depended" on that have
    been mentioned in this topic amount to luxuries more than necessities. 

    The only lack of self-sufficiency in a space colony which cannot clearly
    be dealt with by proper design and initial supplying is the
    high-technology equipment that might be necessary.  But then the colony
    doesn't need VAX computers or Crays.  It won't be doing things like
    landing on planets, so it won't need high-speed computers.  So what are
    the _absolute_ high-technology requirements of a colony?  (Hmm, that's
    a trick question.  People on Earth lived in space for millenia without
    computers, so the absolute requirements are zero.)  What are the
    requirements of a colony we could build in the next hundred years?


				-- edp                                

    	Also keep in mind that the later generations of space colonists
    who have grown up only, say, on the space colony, will certainly
    NOT miss Earth, as I am certain they will not consider it home.
    	They might miss certain PRODUCTS from Earth that they could
    no longer get in the event of a nuclear war, but they would not
    miss Earth itself in the sense of a nostalgic homeland - the space
    colony would be their homeland.
    
    	Larry
    

    re .34
    Yes people have survived in small groups and on small boats but
    their experiences haven't always been trouble free. (Columbus had
    a mutine for example and there are certainly some small towns that
    aren't shining examples  of mental health.) I didn't meant that
    small size would keep a colony from surviving in normal situations
    - but it is a problem that should be considered in time of WAR.
    Even ten thousand is not - as was mentioned earlier - a sufficiently
    large popultion to provide all the speciaists needed to run a techno-
    logical society. Further more the isolation and the relative fragility
    (compaired to the earth) of a space colony would make it more
    susceptable  especially in wartime. What if two groups of colonists
    from two opposing nations on earth decide to start fighting? Or
    if someone overcome with grief at events on earth sabotoges a crucial
    piece of equipment? Both are as potentially lethal as a missle strike
    and should be considered when planning for or discussing survival.
    
    As to better reasons than survival of the human race for founding 
    a space colony, hopefully it would also be a door way to the stars
    or a way to expand the human frontier - which is really saying the
    same thing. (Personally I'd like to see them founded so I could
    go - but I doubt that it will occur in my lifetime.)
    
    re .35
    
    As far as problems even with 10,000 people in WAR time again, I've
    discussed that above. Any person planning for the survival of 
    a space colony under any circumstances, but especially under war
    conditions, has to factor in human psychology, and our argumentative
    nature (see any notes file) this is a potential threat to the survival
    of any colony and should be as much a consideration as how many
    tons of dirt the colony needs to be buried under as a radiation
    shield.
    
    As to your quoteing my statement that promising research doesn't
    mean there won't be any problems as being space operaish and fantasy
     - how much biology and ecology have you studied? You come over
    as very uninformed in this area.
    
    Ecology, for example, is still a relatively new science. I can't
    imagine any ecologist being confident that we know all about our
    earthly ecosystem - or even enough to set up a problem free self-
    sustaining ecosystem 10,000's of miles from earth. We have had
    many disasters of the sort you call fantasy right here on earth
    due to our lack of knowledge of the naturally occuring systems.
    It is rather, fantasy and space operish to imagine we are so well
    versed in the mysteries of the ecosystems that we can confidently
    set up a problem free working system in space and expect it to 
    sustain life when cut off in a WAR time situation. This applies not only
    our current level of knowledge but for a good while in the future 
    as well. The more we have learned about ecosystems the more we learn
    that we don't know.                                        
                       
    The same is true of space medicine. We have done a lot of reasearch
    in this area - but it is an even newer area of science. To assume
    that there will be no surprises, no unexpected and potentially lethal
    problems over a long terms basis or when cut off from supplies
    is at best shortsighted and at worse foolish and ignorant. (For
    an example see ABCs in Space in ....... in one of the three A--  SF
    mags this month).
        
    Any space colony would be highly dependant on very sophisticated
    technology. I would bet - as an example - that the type of computer
    support needed to run an air and recycling system balance
    an ecology, to run robotised mines, to maintian orbit and spin,
    and otherwise provide for the needs of the colonists would approach
    if not surpass the complexity needed to land a space craft (which
    at least is realtively standarized.) and is every bit as dependant
    on outside supplies for complex repair parts and other materials
    that it would not be easily manufactured in a space colony environment,
    and for new technology.
    

      There is also a question of "What could someone build?" vs. "What
    would someone build?". For a space colony to overcome all of the
    problems of living in a self_sufficient way the independence would
    have to be an original design goal. I can't think who would want
    to go to the expense of building such a station.
    
       For the same price you could have a network of dependent space
    stations and space bases that would advance technology in the areas
    of science and industry and provide the steping stone to more space
    research. This is the type of station being planed by NASA, ESA,
    and the U.S.S.R.
    
       It is hard enough to get money for things which advance the state
    of space technology and interact with the scientific and industrial
    world. I can't imagine the head of NASA going to congress and asking
    for billions of dollars to send 10,000 people off to hide among
    the stars. He is currently having problems getting money to build
    a single space shuttle which is known to be a benifit to science,
    industry, and defense.
    
       Would those of you that are proposing the station built from the
    ground up for the purpose of playing hide and seek indicate where
    you think the money would come from, when it would be built, and
    who would build it?
    
       George
             

re: .38

The goals of the initial colonies are all going to be Earth-related.  
Only after a number of colonies are going concerns will there be 
enough slack to permit the spacers to build colonies for themselves.

re: general survivability

What makes a space colony's survival really problematic is that there
is very little margin for error in space.  One small failure can kill
everybody. Look at the shuttle: one bad seal in a joint and all the
astronauts are dead, the craft is destroyed, and the entire program is
in trouble. Life on earth is a lot more tolerant of error.  If all
your machinery fails, you can still go out into the woods and hunt
squirrels.  Maybe a lot of people die, but some will carry on. 

This would be a reason to build a lot of little colonies rather than a
few big ones.  Point failures kill fewer people that way.  If an
ecological disaster hits one colony, the others can learn from it.  If
a key piece of machinery breaks in one, the survivors can be evacuated
and the rest of the equipment salvaged for use by the others.  It's
harder to produce gravity in small colonies, but the safety factors of
redundancy might make it worth the cost. 

re: .33 (?) shipping expertise on CDROMs

The trouble is that most expertise is not written down.  This is a
constant problem in engineering projects.  A lot of key information
only exists in the designers' heads, and if one of those people leaves
the company, you're in trouble.  For example, a couple of years ago we
found that we were running low on LSI-11 chips.  We only needed them
for 780 consoles, but no one wanted to redesign the console that close
to the end of the 780's life.  We looked in the archives for how to
make LSI-11s, and found that the manufacturing process for the chip
had been lost.  The process was so obsolete that no one had bothered
to document it.  We were lucky we still had the masks.  I think the
process recipe was found eventually, but it took a lot of digging. And
we were the ones who built it to begin with!  Even the DEC engineering
archives don't contain all the info on how to build DEC products. 

/jlr

    Re .37: 

    I still don't think much of your suggested scenarios.  What if two
    groups of people in a town on Earth decided to start fighting?  Or if
    somebody poisoned the water supply?  Both could destroy the town. 

    History just doesn't bear out your suggestions.  Most towns survive. 

    The science of ecology may be a relatively new science, but ecology
    itself isn't new at all.  Ecosystems are flexible.  The colony is not
    going to have floods, tornadoes, or earthquakes, and that's pretty much
    all in the way of disasters that come from ecology. 

    This goes for biology too.  New diseases aren't going to spring up just
    because people are in space.  Remember, we are in space now.  Again,
    history shows many examples of small groups surviving, in spite of
    diseases of the past.  Once people are protected from space -- i.e.,
    protected from cold, low pressure, and radiation and given gravity --
    the medical problems of the colony will be the same medical problems of
    any small town. 

    > I would bet - as an example - that the type of computer support
    > needed to run an air and recycling system balance an ecology, . . . 

    I bet it wouldn't.  Remember ecological systems are flexible.  They HAD
    to be; nobody was nurturing them before we got here.  They came into
    existence just from energy and raw materials -- that's a RELIABLE
    system, one that comes into existence "on its own" and grows and
    adjusts itself.  There's a point where the ecology is self-adjusting.
    Not enough plants?  That means the animals are producing more carbon
    dioxide and other things useful to plants which makes it easier for
    plants to survive and reproduce, causing there to be more plants.  And
    the closer a colony is to that point, the easier it will be to maintain
    the ecology.  Second-to-second calculations will not be needed.  There
    aren't going to be any sudden conversions of oxygen to carbon dioxide
    which require immediate action.

    > . . . to run robotised mines, to [maintain] orbit and spin, . . . 

    If you do much mining on a spinning colony, you're going to kill
    yourself. 

    Computers are not required to maintain orbit or spin. 


				-- edp

re: .31 (using a shell of fine wires around the colony as a missile detector)

Even though I suggested it, this is actually not a good idea.  All 
the offense has to do is sidle up to the alarm wires and blow a 10 km hole
in the shell with a nuke.  Then all the other missiles can pour in without 
fear of detection.  It just goes to show how easy counter-measures are
against SDI schemes.  A much better defense would be to bury the 
colony deep inside the Moon or an asteroid.

/jlr

re: .40 (a robust ecology in a colony isn't that hard)

Although the designers of a colony will try to make its ecology as 
robust as possible, there is always the potential for mistakes.  Even 
the Earth's ecology is not all that stable - look at the Ice Ages.
They should be able to work it out eventually, but it will take a lot
of space experience.  And even then things won't be fool-proof - 
after five thousand years of sea-faring our ships still sink.

/jlr (who has trouble keeping his apartment habitable)

    RE .41:  Think the colony will wonder about the 10 km hole; maybe
             suspect there's someone out there?
    
    RE .42:  There are some small craft fabricated from bouyant material.
             The manufacturers did not worry about 'planned obsolesence'. 
    
    							Don 

re:.43

>    RE .41:  Think the colony will wonder about the 10 km hole; maybe
>             suspect there's someone out there?

The other missiles attack as soon as the first one blows a hole in 
the alarm shell.  They are also painted black, radar-absorbent etc,
ninja nukes, so to speak.  The colony lasers can't cover the whole of 
the ten km gap, so the second wave of missiles can slip in.

/jlr

    No one so far has really mentioned any military strategy.  I'm no
    expert, but military people usually feel more comforatable on the
    high ground, and for the most part space is high ground.
    
    So I doubt if any colonization effort wouldn't at least have some
    military involvement.  This leads me to believe that there could
    be several scenarios:
    
    - Colonies are built simultaneously by several factions.....
    
    - One "nation" gets "ahead" of another by a large margin.  This
      would probably result in heavy duty espionage efforts by the
      nation that is behind (i.e. getting there people on the INSIDE
      should they be needed....)
    
    I would like to believe that space could be a wonderful place where
    boundries are forgotten, but that is hard to believe.  It is 
    entirely possible that a "congolmerate" of space people would view
    themselves as "outside" a war on earth.
    
    In view of one and two above, I think that the war would somehow
    be propagated to the colony (assuming that the colony is in close
    proximity to earth....
    
    For whatever it is worth....Frank

    A very good set of books on the whole space colony topic is _Kinsman_
    and _Millenium_ by Ben Bova. They are about a man, Chester Kinsman,
    who is in the Air Force's Space Shuttle program and is the first
    person to kill someone in space. The books are very interesting,
    especially because they were written (I believe) in the late 60's
    or early 70's, and talk very convincingly of space shuttles, astronauts
    working on satellites much like the rescue mission of last year,
    "Star Wars" defense systems, and a host of other topics. Unfortunately,
    I don't know who if anyone is printing them because I read my brother's
    Sci Fi Book club copies.
    
    Roy

    Millenium should be available at B.Dalton; the other, maybe.
    
    Mack Reynolds also has a series (loosely related) dealing with
    orbital habitats.
    
    This comment is a little late but, a lot of the arguments for
    and against survivability are addressed/answered in a number
    of the works (learned papers and speculative books) on the
    topic of orbital habitats.  Also, Sir I. Newton, with the
    later colloboration of economists, have given some indication
    of the feasibility of attacking objects in high orbits.  Of
    course, if you are willing to stretch you time line out a
    little, postulate habitats in non-Earth orbits.  Real difficult
    to hit...
    
    Dwight

    I didn't find KINSMAN all that exciting.  MILLENIUM is still sitting
    on my shelf.
    
    I believe Reynolds "orbital habitats" stories are the "Rex Bader"
    series.  5 books so far, I think.
    
                                            Don

There is a good story about WW3 breaking out, and the US and Soviet space
stations survival, including a foray back to the surface for needed supplies,
called EARTHWRECK, by ?N Scottia?

Jim.

	Might that be Thomas N. Scortia...?

    Just for the sake of an argument.....  Let's suppose that I have
    my medium size space station sitting up in orbit and you want to
    knock it out of the sky. The station itself is highly reflective.
    Miles ahead and miles behind of the station I keep junk fields in
    orbit with me. Mixed in with the junk are a couple of look out
    satalites that keep an eye on the junk to make sure nothing passes
    thru undetected. I also have a radar system to let me know if anything
    unexpected is coming. Just in case I do detect an unwelcome visitor
    I flip the switch that turns on the Phallax(sp?) missle screen that's
    used on some of the ships in todays navy (Modified to work in a
    vacuum of course). I do keep an eye on things below so if you launch
    against me I might just find out about it. I don't keep anything
    high tech like nuke bombs on board but I do have a couple of rather
    large rocks sitting over in the junk fields. If I catch you I drop
    one on your launch site.
    
    Now, how do you go about getting rid of me?  A big missle attack
    with lots of decoys might get thru. I think I could probably do
    more in that area though. Other than the station's reflectivity
    I haven't given much though to energy weapons. Assuming an attack
    from the earth's surface, would they be effective at that range?
    I tried to use low tech solutions to keep myself in orbit. Anybody
    got other ideas? The Phallax(Sp?), if you haven't heard of it, is
    a ship based missle defence system based on a radar controlled
    Gatling(Sp) gun. When it detects an incomming missle, it basically
    puts a wall of lead between the ship and the missle.
    
    Dan Eaton

    for every weapon there's a defense, for every defense there is a
    counter-measure...
    
    round and round it goes...
    
    weapons (offensive OR defensive) will never put an end to war, without
    	putting an end to man.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

re: .53 
    
>    round and round it goes...
    
>    weapons (offensive OR defensive) will never put an end to war, without
>    	putting an end to man.
    
Well said.

JO

Well said, but incorrect.

Putting an end to man would not end war.  It would merely end OUR wars.

Until a form of life develops that does not compete with other beings and
itself for resources, there will be war.
                  
Intelligence and toolmaking merely changes the scale of the conflict.

- Chris

< Note 353.55 by DSSDEV::WALSH "Chris Walsh" >

>Until a form of life develops that does not compete with other beings and
>itself for resources, there will be war.
                  
Are we at war with Data General?  Are the Red Sox at war with the Yankees?
Competition and war are not the same thing.  One might as well say 
that because some people will always work for other people there will 
always be slavery.  Slavery used to be the foundation of economic activity,
and war used to be the basis of international relations.  If the one 
can be eradicated, then perhaps so can the other.

re: missile defenses for space stations

Missile or laser defenses probably could stop incoming missiles, but 
in space you don't need to use explosives to destroy things.  Just 
lob rocks at the stations at ten miles per second.  If the rocks get 
blown up, all the better,  because now you have a hundred projectiles 
to riddle the station where before you only had one.  Space stations 
are like the modern infantryman; their defense is non-existent 
compared to their offense.

BTW, the Navy missile defense is probably spelled Phalanx.  It means 
a small group of soldiers marching in step and protected by 
interlocking shields.

re: 353.53

>    for every weapon there's a defense, for every defense there is a
>    counter-measure...


True, but what are the weapons and defenses?  353.52 was asked in the spirit 
that sometimes the journey is more interesting than the destination.

re: 353.54

> Missile or laser defenses probably could stop incoming missiles, but 
> in space you don't need to use explosives to destroy things.  Just 
> lob rocks at the stations at ten miles per second.  If the rocks get 
> blown up, all the better,  because now you have a hundred projectiles 
> to riddle the station where before you only had one.  Space stations 
> are like the modern infantryman; their defense is non-existent 
> compared to their offense.

Rocks? What size are your rocks? Recall the debris fields I put in front and 
behind the station? A big rock that would plow thru the debris field with
no problem is probably big enough for me to see long before it gets to the 
station. That gives me time to either try for an intercept with a missle packed
with conventional explosives and knock the rock off course. Or I could move
the station to the side and watch the rock wizz on by. Probably have to do
both because of lack of time.

Small rocks? Debris field sweeps them away.

Medium size rocks? Hmmm. That might be a problem. However, seems to me, that
when your rock hits my rock what results is not necessarily going to be aimed
at me. Nice try, but I'm not convinced.

I had an idea for protecting the station from energy weapons beamed up from
earth. What would happen if I took water, and froze it into a shield between 
the station and the earth. The shield would be built of ice blocks a couple
of feet thick and then wrapped in an insulating layer to keep it from out 
gassing like a comet. 

Never mind. I found my own ice pick. I don't know how effective at soaking
up energy weapons the shield would be but all someone would have to do would
be to launch a missle (rock) at the shield before firing the death beam. I 
wouldn't be able to do anything about the missle because the shield would be
in the way. Hmmm. How about equiping the shield with a radar controlled squirt
gun? What happens to a stream of water in a vacuum. Does it freeze in shadow?
Turn to steam in sun light? Or just disperse? Anybody got an idea?

Dan

     
    A stream of water would torn into a symmetrical (hemispherical)
    spray of ice crystals. ( I get this from what an actual astronaut
    said was the most beautiful sight he's ever seen - a urine dump
    at sunset)
    
    Roy

re: .57

Use little rocks, the size of machine gun bullets.  In fact, they could
BE machine gun bullets.  Just sit on the opposite side of the earth, 
aim very carefully, fire away, and 45 minutes later - Swiss space station.
A debris field that will stop machine gun bullets is equivalent to 
putting a shell of sandbags around the entire station, which is a lot 
of mass.  If you have a lot of stuff floating around from lunar 
mining operations, that might work.  Would also be good radiation 
protection from solar flares.  However, anything that has to 
accelerate could not afford that kind of massy protection, and so 
would still be vulnerable.  Solar panels also cannot be protected 
this way, because it would block sunlight, and because there's too 
much area to protect.  The upshot is that the crew could survive 
inside their bunker, but their transportation and energy supplies 
would be cut off.  

That's assuming just conventional weapons.  Nothing can be done about 
dark, radar-absorbing nukes.

/jlr

    a phalanx is a column of soldiers that march in close formation
    with LONG pikes as protection (and as an offensive weapon).
    The interlocking shields is the tortoise formation of Roman soldiers.

       "The ability of man to walk and actually live on other worlds has
    virtually assured mankind immortality." - Wernher von Braun 

    Immortality?  But of what sort?
    
    "In a thousand years at our present rate of change we'll be 
    either machines or gods."   - Bruce Sterling

      "The thought seems to be that while the people on Earth are destroying 
    themselves, communities in space will be able to survive and carry on.  
    This thought does an injustice to our habitat, the Earth.  It assumes 
    that if only we could escape the Earth we would find safety - as though 
    it were the Earth and its plants and animals that threatened us, rather 
    than the other way around." - Johnathan Schell, THE FATE OF THE EARTH 

      "This curious world which we inhabit is more wonderful than it is 
    convenient; more beautiful than it is useful; it is more to be admired 
    and enjoyed than used." - Henry David Thoreau  
  
      "The meek shall inherit the Earth.  The rest of us will go to the
    stars." - Robert A. Heinlein

    Interesting contrast, there, between Thoreau's attitude and Heinlein's.
    
    ESW

RE: .64

What contrast -- seems to me they say the same thing, only Thoreau's view
is that of quiet contemplation in harmony (the Spectator), while Heinlein's
comes from a point of action (the Doer).  otherwise, they say the same things.

- Steve, who_can't_decide_which_stance_works_best_for_him   (;^})

Heinlein's major influence seems to have been Kipling--not exactly a
Thoreau clone! ;-)
								paul

    I've never liked that Heinlein quote.  It exemplifies his
    contempt for those who aren't the can-do, rah-rah sorts.  Who says
    the meek won't go to the stars?  California was first colonized
    by Franciscan monks, which is about as meek as you get, and
    Pennsylvania was settled by Quakers.   When we go to the stars, I
    hope it will be as Thoreauvians, humble before the wonder of the
    world, instead of as Heinleinian conquistadores.  /jlr

    
    ... Franciscan monks, which is about as meek as you get...
    
    'meek' means humble, not retiring.  The modern Franciscans have
    been ministering to the sick in places like New Guinea for five
    generations, and that's not exactly Club Med.
    
    I think the difference between the Franciscans and the Thoreauvians
    seems to be that the Franciscans can be meek and not seem so
    self-satisfied and boastful about it.
    

IMO, Heinlein merely 'misappropriated' an often ill-used word to make a
point:

Instead of using 'meek' as it relates to Humility (piety, etc.), RAH uses it
to connote indecisiveness and lack of action -- much as Ayn Rand took the
concept of 'selfishness' and then was able (by careful definition of terms)
to present a case in support of it as a positive trait...

He then goes on to affirm the obvious -- that only those with a Drive toward
change (and advancement) will actually "inherit" the Stars (cause it's gonna
take some work!)

	His only fault perhaps lies in the willingness to 'turn a phrase'
	using an ambiguous term -- it works as a 'quotable' ...

- Steve

From:	DECPA::"[email protected]" "Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey" 
        30-APR-1992 03:42:11.52
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Gerard K. O'Neill passes away

Followup-To: sci.space

Gerry O'Neill has passed away.  After hearing the sad news from Larry
Boyle of the Chicago Space Studies, I went hunting and found that Bob
Summersgill had already posted an obituary to SEDS-L, which I take the
liberty of quoting here. 

O'Neill's ideas had tremendous power to excite people and rekindle
hopes for the future of spaceflight that had grown dim in the
post-Apollo slump.  He will be missed-- but his influence on a
generation of space advocates will echo for decades. 

     O~~*         /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                        (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |   Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /   Bitnet:                          [email protected]
   -   -     Internet:                      [email protected]
     ~       SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet:                  43011::HIGGINS
========================================

Date:         Tue, 28 Apr 1992 16:20:15 EDT
Reply-To:     "Interchapter Communications for SEDS" <[email protected]>
Sender:       "Interchapter Communications for SEDS" <[email protected]>
From:         Bob Summersgill <[email protected]>
Subject:      Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill

Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill died yesterday, 4/27/92 in Princeton, NJ.  He
was 65 years old.  Dr. O'Neill was the founder and President of the
Space Studies Institute, Professor Emeritus of Princeton, founder of
the GeoStar Corp., and O'Neill Communications, Inc.   He is the author
of four books including *The High Frontier* and *2081*.  He created
and popularized the idea of colonies in free space, designed and built
the Mass Driver, and designed the device that allows particle
accelerators to fire into each other.  He was a recipient of the
SEDS's Arthur C. Clarke Award. 

His death was the result of a seven year fight with leukemia.  A
memorial service will be held at the Princeton Chapel, May 26th at
10:00am. 

- Bob Summersgill         | Taxes are not raised for the benefit of
  XE605C @ GWUVM - Bitnet | the taxed.  -- Lazarus Long

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" 22-SEP-1994 22:06:19.88
CC:	
Subj:	Space Colony Design Contest

Have your kids send in stuff to this, and get the local schools involved!

Al Globus

Second Annual NASA Ames Space Colony Design Contest

Students in grades 6-12 are invited to submit orbital space colony
designs to NASA Ames by 15 March 1995. Individuals and teams will
compete for prizes and the opportunity to work with NASA scientists to
add their work on the NASA Ames Internet World Wide Web space colony
designs portfolio. All participants will receive a certificate and a
tour of NASA Ames will be arranged for those living nearby. 

Space colonies are permanent communities in orbit, as opposed to liv-
ing on the Moon or other planets. The work of Princeton physicist Dr. 
O'Neill and others have shown that such colonies are technically fea-
sible, although expensive. Settlers of this high frontier are expected to 
live inside large air-tight rotating structures holding hundreds, thou-
sands, or even millions of people along with the animals, plants, and 
single celled organisms vital to comfort and survival. There are many 
advantages to living in orbit: environmental independence, plentiful 
solar energy, and terrific views to name a few. There is plenty of room 
for everyone who wants to go; the materials from a single asteroid can 
build space colonies with living space equal to about 500 times the sur-
face area of the Earth.

Why should colonies be in orbit? Mars and our Moon have a surface 
gravity far below Earth normal. Children raised in low-g will not 
develop bones and muscles strong enough to visit Earth comfortably. 
In contrast, orbital colonies can be rotated to provide Earth normal 
pseudo-gravity in the main living areas.

We hope teachers will make this contest part of their lesson plan. 
While designing a space colony, students will have a chance to study 
physics, mathematics, space science, environmental science, and 
many other disciplines. We would like students outside the science 
classes to participate as well. Thus, contest submissions may include 
short stories, models, and artwork. Students can design entire colonies 
or focus on one aspect of orbital living. A class or school may submit 
a joint project where small teams tackle different areas in a coordi-
nated fashion. For example, consider a cross curriculum project where 
science classes design the basic structure and support systems, art stu-
dents create pictures of the interior and exterior, English students write 
related short stories, social studies students develop government and 
social systems, woodshop builds a scale model, and the football team 
proposes low-g sports.

Schools and teachers may consider ongoing multi-year projects, each 
year's students add detail to a space colony design that becomes part 
of the school or class portfolio. In this case, teachers assign students to 
different parts of the design, gradually building a more and more com-
plete and practical space colony concept. Each year the project can be 
submitted to the contest.

Submissions should be sent to Al Globus. MS T27A-1, NASA Ames 
Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. 94035-1000, email: globus@na-
s.nasa.gov. Be sure to include your name, address, and age. Teachers 
using the contest in their class should submit all projects together, 
include the name and address of the school, and provide a phone number.

Background information is provided in two forms. To get a Macintosh 
Hypercard stack, send a self addressed stamped envelope with a Mac-
intosh floppy disk to Tug Sezen, 800 Sante Fe Court, Oakley, CA 
94561, email: [email protected], phone (510) 679-8121. Mr. 
Sezen will be happy to share his experience using orbital space colony 
design in his ninth grade classroom. For Internet users with Mosaic or 
other WWW browser, look at URL: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/RNR/
Visualization/AlGlobus/SpaceColonies/spaceColonies.html.

This contest is sponsored by the NASA Ames Research Center and 
John Swett High School, Crockett, CA.

We hope that this contest will provide an exciting educational and cre-
ative opportunity for students and begin training those who will build 
the first space colonies: the engineers, scientists, and poets who will 
start Life's expansion throughout the solar system. 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 22:04:48 EDT
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Reply-To: [email protected]
% Originator: [email protected]
% Sender: [email protected]
% From: [email protected] (Al Globus)
% Subject: Space Colony Design Contest
% X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: SSI Members email Discussion Group