Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!VLSI@DEC-MARLBORO From: VLSI@DEC-MARLBORO@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: re: space colonization Message-ID: <11995@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Sep-83 09:46:00 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.11995 Posted: Mon Sep 26 09:46:00 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Sep-83 20:46:27 EDT Lines: 52 From: John Redford When people talk of colonizing space, the analogy that always comes to my mind is colonizing Antarctica. The two have a great deal in common; both are vast and empty, and contain potentially rich resources, and both environments are fatal to unprotected humans. Both have a desolate beauty that one could grow to like. I knew a guy who had spent a year down in Antarctica at a research base, and he brought back some extraordinary pictures of the aurora. Antarctica has an edge over outer space in that there is an occasional penguin to liven things up. Plus, it can be settled with today's technology. (Please, no comments about how space colonies could be built with current technology. Current technology means things that are done in regular practice, not things that are just physically possible.) And yet, there are no steamers packed with hopeful settlers on their way south. This might be because only scientists and the military can get permission to go there, but there doesn't really seem to be much demand for homesteads. Antarctica is a barren wasteland. Living there means spending all your time in a metal can, with an occasional few minutes outside. No birds, no sunshine, no frisbee out on the grass. One can imagine building enclosed domes full of greenery, but in fact no one can afford to. How is space different? Well, Antarctica is finite and space is not. The possibilities for expansion are limited. Remember, though, that ten million people have hardly begun to fill up Austrailia. Antarctica is of similar size, but with four orders of magnitude less people. There would hardly be any reason to feel cramped. And space isn't really infinite. The only parts you can do anything with are Mercury, Mars, the Moon, the few hundred asteroids of appeciable size, and the moons of the gas giants. The total area of all of these probably doesn't come to much more than that of the Earth. Venus is too hot, the gas giants are not solid, and the stars are too far away. (Again, please, no talk of hyperdrives.) Is life in space likelier to be freer than that in Antarctica? I don't see how can it can be. There are already a maze of regulations and treaties governing what you can do up there. As the military's presence grows, one's freedom of action is likely to become even more restricted. People living in near-Earth space can destroy cities just by dropping things on them; Earthside authorities are not likely to let that go unchecked. Still, the reason for going to Antarctica is the same as the reason for going to space, knowledge. Knowledge is the cheapest commodity to transport, so it's the first to be returned from distant places. Knowledge is far more valuable than Antarctic coal or asteroidal steel. I don't really care much if we can mine hydrocarbons from the surface of Titan, but I would sure like to know what's going on down there. Perhaps someday we will put lots of people and industry into space. Micro-gravity could become a major component of industrial processes, as major as, say, catalytic cracking is to chemical production. But the real excitement of space is exploration and science. If all you are looking for is a bigger backyard, then try the South Pole. John Redford DEC - Hudson --------