If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   NASA's 1970s conceptual drawings of space colonies still looking pretty freaking cool   (slate.com) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, NASA, space colonies, Centrifugal Force, Ames Research Center, drawings, O'Neill, Phil Plait  
•       •       •

5849 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Dec 2012 at 7:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-09 06:20:55 AM

maniacbastard: Why would you move all that shiat into space when you can use it on another planetary body instead?

ie, Moon colonies are easier than that bullshiat.


Planetary bodies are reliant on a natural sun. Solar bodies have some longevity, but are not permanent.

An engineered structure and light/heat source are not flawed in that way. No earth quakes, no floods, no inclement weather(severe winter / hurricanes), controlled radiation from the faux-sun.

May not be great for evolution and progression of the species, but if we can pull off that feat(the more popular version is the Dyson Sphere), we'll probably also have genetics down pat.
 
2012-12-09 06:25:23 AM

maniacbastard: Why would you move all that shiat into space when you can use it on another planetary body instead?

ie, Moon colonies are easier than that bullshiat.


Simple: Escape velocity. An orbital/interplanetary colony has the distinct advantage in that getting material in and out of the thing costs a fraction of the fuel. (From orbit, or from other interplanetary colonies.)

A interplanetary colony can use asteroids for raw material. And there is a LOT of material out there, metals, clays, water, organics.

A mars or a moon colony have all of the problems of an interplanetary colony (you have to keep life alive in a bubble) with none of the advantages (it's cheap and easy to get material back and forth.) Neither the moon nor mars have a magnetic field, so you still have the problem of radiation shielding. All of the material on Mars is oxidized, so you have to refine it. And without any free oxygen in the atmosphere. Plus, with Mars and the Moon, you have terrain to overcome to get local materials to the colony, even if they were present.
 
2012-12-09 06:29:19 AM
Quantum Apostrophe: It's not possible, and it never will be. Ever.

dl.dropbox.com

This world is full of impossible things.

What's preventing space colonization is the fact that the construction costs are high and the land value is low.
There isn't a business that pays for these operations, yet.

With people seriously looking into asteroid mining, space solar power, micro gravity manufacturing and other business models (and as the cost of travel drops) then the situation will change.
If people will live in the God forsaken Arctic for a few million gallons of oil, they'll live on an asteroid for a few trillion tons of rare metals.
...and If they live in space, they'll need some place to dry their work boots.

/I think the only part the futurists get wrong is the idea that the interior will look like central park.
 
2012-12-09 06:32:16 AM
Of all the retro-future stuff, the graphics from the 70's and early 80's have to be my favorite. The covers on some of the old pulp publications from those days are just awesome. Spaceship design, mostly, with big yellow or orange stripes on a white hull, and a large, single-digit number painted somewhere on the vessel.
 
2012-12-09 06:47:03 AM
I remember seeing many of those in magazines as a kid. :)
 
2012-12-09 07:28:37 AM

Honest Bender: Philboy52: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x361]

Who's with me? Anyone?... oh well, I guess I still have Puck to hang out with...

1. The book series is really good.
2. I own that game and played the crap out of it back in the day.


The first book is one of the best scifi novels ever. The second is somewhat less than mediocre.

The rest are utter garbage, soap opera junk written by a hack.
 
2012-12-09 07:38:40 AM
www.chicagoreader.com 

Just don't forget to point all that foliage toward the sun or it will die out you stupid retard.
 
2012-12-09 07:53:20 AM

Slaxl: WhyteRaven74: Quantum Apostrophe: It's not possible,

Until we decide to do it. Then it'll be very possible.

This is QA, he'll ask you how old atoms are, and whether or not you can 3d print some new elements that are hiding in the periodic table. He's the Bevets of space.


Incidentally, "Space Bevets" is how I have him favorited.

entropic_existence: Baron Harkonnen: entropic_existence: If you honestly believe we will never, ever have groups of people living permanently/semi-permanently somewhere other than Earth you're a complete farking moron.

Um, get angry much?

Seriously.

QA comes in to every thread about space and does this thread-shiatting. It's not exactly a one time thing, hence the exasperation.


Hey, give the man some credit. He thread-shiats in threads that aren't about space travel, too.
 
2012-12-09 08:07:10 AM

Any Pie Left: There is nothing but economics stopping those designs from being realized. The engineering is sound, in fact, it would be easier to build them now, than thirty years ago, but we lack the money and will to start something that big.

I remember how fired-up the O'Neil stuff got me in my late teens, and my frustration at the glacial pace of actual programs. We need something to re-align the human race's sense of vision. To dream big, and to dream beyond one man's span.


DING>>>DING>>>DING! Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner!
Somebody has began to figure it out.
It's the Economics, Stupid.
Change the Economic model and it will happen.
/This is what I am working on.
//it is gonna happen....much sooner than you all think.
 
2012-12-09 08:27:16 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Generation_D: And in 2012, they're still not funded.

They still don't make sense either. Fantasy poster art is not engineering, n'en déplaise au Space Nutters. 

It was just an idle daydream. It's not possible, and it never will be. Ever.


Hmmm... something sounds familiar...
www.archives.gov
 
2012-12-09 08:29:34 AM

maniacbastard: Why would you move all that shiat into space when you can use it on another planetary body instead?

ie, Moon colonies are easier than that bullshiat.


Gravity is quite a bit easier to replicate there than on a planetary body like a moon that has none... perhaps when we can generate artificial gravity through some kind of electronic means, then that would be a more viable option.
 
2012-12-09 08:31:34 AM

MadRocketScientist: I actually have a copy of the original study from a summer program I attended in 1989. It goes into quite a bit of detail on everything from getting the initial resources into space, mining, refining, and manufacturing of the structure utilizing lunar and/or asteroids for raw materials (it wouldn't be purely prefab sections hauled up from earth), to detailed maintenance requirements of the station once completed. A good read if you're into that sort of thing:

[i.imgur.com image 495x640]


any chance of a pdf?
 
2012-12-09 09:04:59 AM
The huge open spaces are silly. One rouge meteoroid and everyone is dead.
 
2012-12-09 10:18:56 AM

Gunther: No; he's a very successful troll. He makes one post and has a dozen people flame him.

I doubt he ACTUALLY believes 10% of what he claims to believe.


You'd think that, if it weren't so easy to counter-troll him with his own schtick. I sent him in a tizzy with just the word "Nutters" the other day.
 
2012-12-09 10:27:23 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: MadRocketScientist: I actually have a copy of the original study from a summer program I attended in 1989. It goes into quite a bit of detail on everything from getting the initial resources into space, mining, refining, and manufacturing of the structure utilizing lunar and/or asteroids for raw materials (it wouldn't be purely prefab sections hauled up from earth), to detailed maintenance requirements of the station once completed. A good read if you're into that sort of thing:

[i.imgur.com image 495x640]

any chance of a pdf?


Looks like NASA's got you covered. The first 2 hits on google for NASA SP-413 are for a .pdf and HTML version of the report.
 
2012-12-09 11:21:25 AM
I really expected to see a lot more wood paneling in these plans.
 
2012-12-09 11:41:24 AM

CipollinaFan: [www.slate.com image 850x669]

Why go through the trouble of building a suspension bridge when you are the ones building the lake?


Contractors gotta get paid somehow.
 
2012-12-09 12:43:21 PM

fozziewazzi: The huge open spaces are silly. One rouge meteoroid and everyone is dead.


It's the blue ones that you gotta watch out for.
 
2012-12-09 01:12:14 PM

sychosyd_28: I really expected to see a lot more wood paneling in these plans.


and harvest gold shag carpeting
 
2012-12-09 01:30:49 PM

entropic_existence:
QA comes in to every thread about space and does this thread-shiatting. It's not exactly a one time thing, hence the exasperation.


Which is why I have him on ignore. He is one of two. And I wish the rest of you would stop quoting him.
 
2012-12-09 01:33:42 PM

rwfan: entropic_existence:
QA comes in to every thread about space and does this thread-shiatting. It's not exactly a one time thing, hence the exasperation.

Which is why I have him on ignore. He is one of two. And I wish the rest of you would stop quoting him.


Just ignore everyone that quotes him as well. Problem solved!
 
2012-12-09 01:48:14 PM

Wrencher: Suede head: It will never happen. How could we shift that much mass up the gravity well?

If something like that is built, it will be from asteroid derived resources. There are alot of near-earth asteroids.


I see you've got this covered. *salute*
 
2012-12-09 08:15:21 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: A mars or a moon colony have all of the problems of an interplanetary colony (you have to keep life alive in a bubble) with none of the advantages (it's cheap and easy to get material back and forth.) Neither the moon nor mars have a magnetic field, so you still have the problem of radiation shielding. All of the material on Mars is oxidized, so you have to refine it. And without any free oxygen in the atmosphere. Plus, with Mars and the Moon, you have terrain to overcome to get local materials to the colony, even if they were present.


Mars and the moon have lower gravity wells so they are still better than Earth. Mars makes a good research outpost, we definitely want to study it more. Also Mars does have a weak magnetic field. They announced recently based on the Mars Labs readings that it is enough for sufficient radiation shielding. So that is an advantage over something like a station in space itself. We will do both in some form or another of course.
 
2012-12-09 08:16:08 PM

rwfan: Which is why I have him on ignore. He is one of two. And I wish the rest of you would stop quoting him.


I tend to not ignore people, especially the more vocal and prolific thread-shiatters.
 
2012-12-09 08:33:50 PM
I'm thinking someone on the art team went to Pepperdine in Malibu:

www.slate.com

www.pepperdine.edu
 
2012-12-09 10:00:09 PM

MadRocketScientist: HindiDiscoMonster: MadRocketScientist: I actually have a copy of the original study from a summer program I attended in 1989. It goes into quite a bit of detail on everything from getting the initial resources into space, mining, refining, and manufacturing of the structure utilizing lunar and/or asteroids for raw materials (it wouldn't be purely prefab sections hauled up from earth), to detailed maintenance requirements of the station once completed. A good read if you're into that sort of thing:

[i.imgur.com image 495x640]

any chance of a pdf?

Looks like NASA's got you covered. The first 2 hits on google for NASA SP-413 are for a .pdf and HTML version of the report.


Awesome! Thanks.
 
2012-12-10 02:10:25 AM

Robo Beat: Incidentally, "Space Bevets" is how I have him favorited.


Ooh, ooh! I claim credit for that one!
 
2012-12-10 03:11:41 AM
The '70s sure were trippy. I miss that decade. People need to start wearing bell-bottoms and loosening up again.
 
2012-12-10 08:05:39 AM

Max Awesome: The '70s sure were trippy. I miss that decade. People need to start wearing bell-bottoms and loosening up again.


I miss the optimism.
A space colony with 70's and 80's should be an even harder sell than with all the technology we've gained since, But people were more ready to believe in the future.
Doing these kinds of projects today would just be a matter of pushing around a few rocks and sending up 3d printing equipment to crank out concrete forms. But all folks are looking forward to is the end of the world and the next iProduct.
 
2012-12-10 08:21:42 AM

entropic_existence: Evil Twin Skippy: A mars or a moon colony have all of the problems of an interplanetary colony (you have to keep life alive in a bubble) with none of the advantages (it's cheap and easy to get material back and forth.) Neither the moon nor mars have a magnetic field, so you still have the problem of radiation shielding. All of the material on Mars is oxidized, so you have to refine it. And without any free oxygen in the atmosphere. Plus, with Mars and the Moon, you have terrain to overcome to get local materials to the colony, even if they were present.

Mars and the moon have lower gravity wells so they are still better than Earth. Mars makes a good research outpost, we definitely want to study it more. Also Mars does have a weak magnetic field. They announced recently based on the Mars Labs readings that it is enough for sufficient radiation shielding. So that is an advantage over something like a station in space itself. We will do both in some form or another of course.


Mars is a very poor candidate for colonization. There is little in the way of raw material to sustain life. The climate is too cold to sustain life. There isn't enough atmosphere to allow colonists to ever leave the bubble of the compound without a space suit. The escape velocity, while lower than the Earth, still requires a substantial amount of fuel for both landing and taking off. And there is nothing of value to harvest that is not more abundant on the Earth's surface already.

The moon has a very low gravity, but short of some compelling resource that is readily available from the surface, it too is a very poor candidate for colonization. The low gravity means that long term habitation is going to impact the health of the colonists. And with no atmosphere and no magnetic field, everyone is also restricted to the inside of the colony. It's only redeeming quality is a stable orbit close to Earth.

P.S. good luck finding a material that is more abundant on the Moon than the Earth, as the moon in made of the same material as the Earth's crust. Though there may be some exotic elements in the impact craters found around the moon, (Platinum and Iridium for example.)

Now, if we cast our gaze about the solar system, there are plenty of smaller bodies that have the materials we need in readily usable forms. Asteroids have Nickel and Iron that needs little more than to be melted down and cast. (Assuming you don't just machine parts directly from them.) Other asteroids contain the basic organics and clays needed to make soil for agriculture. And still others have exotic crystals and other materials left over from the formation of the solar system.

They can all be reached with a moderate amount of fuel. Heck, you could bring the factory and the refinery with you.
 
2012-12-10 09:26:30 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Mars is a very poor candidate for colonization. There is little in the way of raw material to sustain life. The climate is too cold to sustain life. There isn't enough atmosphere to allow colonists to ever leave the bubble of the compound without a space suit. The escape velocity, while lower than the Earth, still requires a substantial amount of fuel for both landing and taking off. And there is nothing of value to harvest that is not more abundant on the Earth's surface already.

The moon has a very low gravity, but short of some compelling resource that is readily available from the surface, it too is a very poor candidate for colonization. The low gravity means that long term habitation is going to impact the health of the colonists. And with no atmosphere and no magnetic field, everyone is also restricted to the inside of the colony. It's only redeeming quality is a stable orbit close to Earth.

P.S. good luck finding a material that is more abundant on the Moon than the Earth, as the moon in made of the same material as the Earth's crust. Though there may be some exotic elements in the impact craters found around the moon, (Platinum and Iridium for example.)

Now, if we cast our gaze about the solar system, there are plenty of smaller bodies that have the materials we need in readily usable forms. Asteroids have Nickel and Iron that needs little more than to be melted down and cast. (Assuming you don't just machine parts directly from them.) Other asteroids contain the basic organics and clays needed to make soil for agriculture. And still others have exotic crystals and other materials left over from the formation of the solar system.

They can all be reached with a moderate amount of fuel. Heck, you could bring the factory and the refinery with you.


Oh I agree with you mostly, but Mars has scientific research potential and its symbolic. That is why it is likely the first place we will establish some sort of outpost there. And we don't actually know 100% what is all there for raw materials. But yes Asteroids are in general much better sources of metals and other material.
 
2012-12-10 09:33:50 AM

entropic_existence: Oh I agree with you mostly, but Mars has scientific research potential and its symbolic. That is why it is likely the first place we will establish some sort of outpost there. And we don't actually know 100% what is all there for raw materials. But yes Asteroids are in general much better sources of metals and other material.


If nothing else, Mars provides good practice. We are just learning to walk after all.
 
2012-12-10 09:56:23 AM

omeganuepsilon: entropic_existence: Oh I agree with you mostly, but Mars has scientific research potential and its symbolic. That is why it is likely the first place we will establish some sort of outpost there. And we don't actually know 100% what is all there for raw materials. But yes Asteroids are in general much better sources of metals and other material.

If nothing else, Mars provides good practice. We are just learning to walk after all.


I think its more than that, in the long run.
Its expensive to keep humans in space with the need for energy, shielding, and artificial gravity. Its also months of travel to go back and forth.
Mars and the moon represent the low rent housing. These are places where you can raise a space based work force off of local materials.

When considering what space materials and labor are worth, we have to account for what it would have cost to put these things in space.
A ton of titanium, sold at earth prices, isn't worth the trouble of going to the moon for. But used on the moon and turned into satellites and space vehicles (launched for next to nothing) its worth quite a bit.

Possibly enough to justify keeping permanent labor on the moon, if not mars as well.
 
2012-12-10 10:08:58 AM

way south: These are places where you can raise a space based work force off of local materials.


Building materials, possibly.

Organics for plants and animals, not so much. IIRC at any rate...Most of what life subsists on is remnants from past life, on down the line to simpler and simpler life. It is the reason that, in sci-fi, a terra-forming is sometimes done by simple molds/plants, that is all that can live off bare non-organic elements. Sure, you can bring a mini-chain with you, but it's going to be difficult to make that sustainable without directly using all feces for soil rejuvination, which has it's own unique dangers.

Building material is not the biggest hurdle, it's a sustainable source of food.
 
2012-12-10 01:23:07 PM

omeganuepsilon: Building material is not the biggest hurdle, it's a sustainable source of food.


Sounds like a problem for the microbiologists.
I don't see that or construction as the big hurdle. To me its about getting a viable economy going. This is an expensive endeavour and something's got to pay for all the startup equipment.

Its like everyone's sitting in Spain and theorizing how hard life will be on those unexplored shores.
The details of how to raise pigs and potatoes will settle themselves once the first shipment of space age gold arrives.
 
2012-12-10 02:12:08 PM
Yeah, lots of great idea's, startup is the real biatch.
 
2012-12-10 06:43:10 PM

Ishkur: [www.chicagoreader.com image 500x300] 

Just don't forget to point all that foliage toward the sun or it will die out you stupid retard.


laughed harder than I should have.

/still love that movie
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report