A human habitable *solar system* doesn't need to have human habitable
*planets*. Any star-faring culture could build large orbital habitats
around any suitable star. In that context, systems with hot stars pumping out
lots of energy for solar collectors etc. and large asteroid belts would be
preferable. Gas giants (and their moons?) would be excellent sources of
resources too, if one could find a way to mine them.
So how about a decentralised "pelagic" society in the Tuffleyverse? Motto:
"Leave the gravity well alone!"
From: "Robert N Bryett"
> A human habitable *solar system* doesn't need to have human habitable
> around any suitable star. In that context, systems with hot stars
<grin> Great idea! signs, The Alarishi Empire "Three stars, two laws, one
emperor, no planets"
On 5/4/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> A human habitable *solar system* doesn't need to have human habitable
One question: why would they build it? You'd need to answer that.
Large orbital habitats are going to be a large capital investment. There would
have to be a really good reason you'd spend that kind of
money/resources to pop an orbital habitat around a distant star in a
hostile chunk of the galaxy.
You'd need a _really_ good reason to do it on the incredibly short
time line offered for the Tuffleyverse, unless the habitat was created by
aliens.
Personally, I can't see it happening unless there's a military reason. I think
Beth ran some numbers that showed that the colonized planets in the
Tuffleyverse (other than those in our solar system) wouldn't exactly be
running into a lot of population pressure.
If you were going to build a space habitat, why wouldn't you do it in
a star system with a friendly planetary colony and -- presumably -- a
military presence to defend you?
If there are no friendly systems, perhaps you need to rethink the whole
"easily punctured by missiles" space habitat thing. There's always the
"religious zealots form a colony" idea, but where did they get the money to
build a habitat?
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a power in the Tuffleyverse that exists only
in habitats and on small chunks of rock. I'm just saying that I'd prefer a
reason for it being there other than, "A space habitat society would be cool!"
AllanG said:
> One question: why would they build it? You'd need to answer that.
The Prince Henry Corporation was created in the early days of FTL travel to
explore other solar systems. It was an extrememly risky venture and several
ships were lost; however, several ships returned home with survey data. UN
regulations meant that only recognized countries (or blocs) could claim
habitable planets, so PH Corp sold most of the data (mainly to the PAU and IF)
for an extrememly healthy profit. PH Corp then established a shipping route to
transport colonists to the IF planets; Alarish was built (on a gas giant moon)
as a waystation and refueling point. Most later Alarishi habs were built into
existing moons or asteroids; although a few (one of the Forward Power
stations, New LA, maybe Turing Republic) were not.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
Exactly. I thought about that little uncomfortable fact when I was reading
C.J. Cherryh's DOWNBELOW STATION. If you are only living on orbital colonies,
why bother
Difficult to see a whole society this way, but...
Perhaps a mass mining operation on a rogue planet traveling through a solar
system (ref. see Poul Anderson's Satan's World). The rouge world entered an
unstable eliptic orbit and finally broke away again. While it
was in-system it was heavily mined (no need to worry about environmental
damage). The humans stayed in the asteroid belt or space stations (in a
semi-sustaining environment) when the planet was outside of the,
somewhat, habital zone. Perhaps, they were stranded (evil corporation, last
ship had FTL accident, etc.) and they did not have the heavy industry needed
to make FTL drives. So they made the best they could
among the asteroid/space station habitats? [shrug]
-Bri
> Robert N Bryett wrote:
Cloud City?
Not habitable on the surface, but still has "human" settlements.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/4/06, Allan
> Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
Lots of (most of) the freighters we've seen aren't atmosphere capable -
so that means that at some point they transfer their cargo to atmosphere
capable craft, or leave it somewhere for further handling. That "somewhere"
has to be in orbit; you're going to need workers at your orbital cargo
facility, and if there's enough workers, it might be worthwhile building a
proper habitat rather than just a space station with hab modules.
Plus, mercentile types might move out to the facility, to be where their
cargos are.
Related to freighter design: no matter how good your PSB engines, dragging
up and down a gravity well and/or an atmosphere is always going to be
more expensive in terms of fuel, time, and wear & tear on your craft.
I'm not sure what the line between "big orbital cargo yard w/ a
population" and "orbital habitat" will be, but busy enough systems will
probably support a significant orbital population. Sol system's orbital
population probably outstrips most colonial planetary populations massively.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAll of these
arguments are good reasons why a system with inhabitable planets would have
orbital habitats.
They don't answer the original question about why would you build a habitat in
a star system with no habitable planet.
Reasons why you might build a habitat in a star system with no human planets.
Military base For whatever reason the government thinks it needs a permanent
presence in the system. Maybe as a support or layover base for patrol craft.
Corporate base The system contains one or more materials that is sufficiently
rare to justify the expense of maintaining a base and interplanetary shipping.
The corporation wants to engage in some very secret (and possibly illegal
)research project and needs a facility in a system where no one knows to look.
Also if things go wrong there is no contamination of an inhabited system.
Colonisation Maybe there is a planet that could be human habitable once the
atmosphere is reengineered. An orbital base could be a useful place to oversee
the initial stages of a teraforming process.
Prison Maybe some kind of space prison for really dangerous convicts or
dissidents or those with bad dress sense could be exiled to a space station in
another solar system. No sense on wasting a habitable planets on convicts.
Could be combined with some of the other options above.
John
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/5/06, Tony
> Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:
Amusingly enough, this was being examined in RL by some NASA scientists a few
years ago (I don't know what the status of this research is right now,
though). I had attended a convention a couple years ago where Geoffrey Landis
presented what he and a team of others at the NASA John Glenn
Research Center have been working on (long-term) about floating cities
in
the Venusian atmosphere. It was loosely tied to the Moon-Mars Initiative
George Bush put forth a few years ago (except focusing on Venus, not Mars
;-) ). I don't remember the details, but at a certain altitude the
temperature is within human tolerances and nowhere nearly as corrosive as
lower down. These floating habitats would supply themselves with natural
resources mined by corrosive-resistent remote flyers and robots sent
down to the surface. They had worked out ways using contemporary technology to
extract water from the atomosphere, so all they had to do was grow their own
food (well, first they have to get us there ;-) ).
Just a little food for thought that floating colonies aren't totally in the
realm of SF :-)
Mk
> From: john tailby
No government, no regulations, no taxes.
> The corporation wants to engage in some very secret (and possibly
The UN gets so unreasonable about anti-matter power systems.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
It could well be a smaller capital investment than building a settlement on a
planet. The ideal planet for a settlement is earthlike but no native life of
its own. If it isn't all that earthlike, you have to terraform it which takes
a long time, or build sealed buildings which won't be much cheaper than those
for an orbital habitat. If it has native life forms, there will be all kinds
of time consuming and costly
experiments/mistakes/disasters. And either way you have to
ship a lot of stuff down the gravity well until it is self sustaining,
although this is a lot cheaper than up.
I like the idea of a habitat forming through accretion of spaceships rather
than being custom built. Big spaceships
for long journeys will be pretty good mini-habitats in
themselves. One of Brians docking facilities could slowly grow into a habitat
as new ships get glued on.
> You'd need a _really_ good reason to do it on the incredibly short
Yeah, the short timeframe is a problem. The Cherryh universe has a long period
of sublight space travel to build stations in.
> If you were going to build a space habitat, why wouldn't you do it in
Maybe because the good planets have been taken already?
> If there are no friendly systems, perhaps you need to rethink the
Religious zealots need not be poor: look at the Wahabis of
the current period :-(
Rather than religious, make them ideological zealots. Bruce
Sterlings Shaper/Mechanist fiction and GURPS Transhuman Space
both have lots of groups who actively want to live in space rather than on a
planet. Kim Stanley Robinson has some nicer types in Blue Mars who live in
hollowed out asteroids and the like.
cheers,
> On 5/5/06, TONY CHRISTNEY Â wrote: Cloud City?
Did they also discuss ways to make the cities float?
Except for Zeppelin-like gas filled bags I don't see a way it could be
done with contemporary technology.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
At this point the PR people of lots of states and corporations start using
complicated sentences with double and triple negatives...
I found this on quick Google-ing, but nothing more recent from Landis...
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF0
3.pdf
Very interesting, but I gather the densities calculated are 'dry' gas, without
the fairly abundant water vapor I think is present at even this
altitude. Still, less than the mile-wide geodesics envisioned for
earthbound floating cities. Given Mars' thin atmosphere, I don't think you
could ever work a proper trade-off.
Good thing we have liftwood. ;->=
Thanks for the pointer!
The_Beast
Mark on 05/05/2006 06:37:06 AM:
> [quoted text omitted]
> On 5/5/06, Tony Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:
Short answer, in the CO2-rich Venusian atmo, 'breathable' atmosphere at
Earth-normal pressure is about half as effective as helium on Earth.
Think BIG Zepp with all interior space open.
The_Beast
Karl wrote on 05/05/2006 09:06:51 AM:
*snippage*
> Did they also discuss ways to make the cities float ?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 5/5/06,
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
Yes, but I don't remember all the details, and I didn't take notes (not
realizing the depth of the presentation was to have). But more or less what
The_Beast said I have vague recollections as being presented.
Mk
For the same reason the British sent colonists to America, Africa and
Australia - while there were more "
[quoted original message omitted]