Manifesto part 6

No involvement with Lunar or Mars colonies

There are a lot of organizations devoted at the colonization of the Moon and/or Mars, we will not participate in their efforts. We do not see any benefit of the establishment of human settlements on the Moon and our red neighbour. Both celestial bodies have the disadvantage of their low gravity, which is bad of human health. But on the other hand the gravity of these bodies great enough, to give them a high escape velocity. Mars has an escape velocity which is about half Earth’s (which is 11 km/s) and the Moon’s is about a fifth, where the escape velocity of asteroids is close to zero.

Escape velocity is of great concern for space colonists, because in order to reach this velocity energy is needed. Reducing energy requirements is saving money, which improves the economical credibility of space settlement programs. When we realize that there are no resources on the Moon or Mars we cannot find on near earth asteroid or comets, we see that it makes no sense to establish colonies on the Moon and Mars.

In fact all resources we can find on Mars and the Moon, are delivered there by asteroids. Some people will cite the (presumed) lunar reserves of helium 3 (a proposed fusion fuel) as a reason for Lunar colonies. We, however, believe that there is no need for helium 3 as an energy source in the Inner Solar System. If the Outer Solar System will be colonized helium 3 extraction from Uranus makes more sense.

Advertisements

Manifesto part 5

Launch facilities

We should not forget to discuss this very important issue. In order to get anywhere in space we need to launch spacecrafts in the first place. So we need a launch platform. Theoretically those platforms can be everywhere on the planet, even at sea, but is preferable to launch rockets somewhere near the equator. From a practical perspective we should locate our launch site should be at some distance away from populated areas. For these reason we believe that Northern Chile (Norte Grande) is an ideal location, save for the benefits of its location it also takes into account that Chile is politically a stable country.

In line with the previous section, we prefer traditional rockets over all proposed but speculative launch systems. Although we recognize the drawbacks of rockets, the fact remains that chemical rockets at least work. While all other proposed alternative launch systems are never tested at full-scale. We can invest many millions of dollars in investigating, for instance, the use of rail gun, but if in the end this system does not work as expected we will lose all our credibility as an organization. In is already difficult to promote space colonization, the only way to convince the mass public is by building an actual space habitat. But wasting our money with speculative launch systems, we are doing the space movement more harm than good.

From both technical and environmental reasons, we believe that hydrogen fueled rockets are the best choice. Technical advantage is that hydrogen rockets has the best efficiency and performance (this why the Space Shuttle used hydrogen fueled engines), and the environmental benefit is that hydrogen rocket only produce water as exhaust. Many other rockets are powered by hydrazine which as fuel is very poisonous and it exhaust gasses are also not very friendly for our already vulnerable atmosphere.

How do want to get the needed hydrogen and oxygen? Very simple, electrolysis of water. Our plan is to install a large number of solar arrays in the Atacama desert, the electricity they generate will be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. We realize that the Atacama desert is the driest in the world, but through the use of solar desalination it is possible to produce rocket fuel from sea water.

It is important to note that we can already in this phase generate revenue. By offering some of our launch capacity to third parties. This is central to our ideas of incremental funding, which we will explain in a later section.

See also: Launch facility location options

Manifesto part 4

Off-the-shelf components

In the last section we saw that in situ resource utilization is key to reducing the costs of a space colonization. Space settlement programs are expensive, so any method to reduce the startup costs is welcome. (I say startup costs, because once asteroid mining becomes profitable space colonies will be economically self-sustaining, but that will probably be at least after two decades.) One other way of reducing costs is by making use of off-the-shelf components as much as possible.

According to Eric Drexler extensive use of off-shelf-components can reduce costs with a factor six. Further Drexler argues that space stations do not have to be made of “special” space materials, many ordinary materials can do the job. Mass production has made this components cheap. One frequently made assertion for special designed components for space stations, is that is important to reduce launch mass. Drexler challenges this “wisdom” by stating that the required research and development costs more money than is save by the reduced mass.

By relying on off-the-shelf components as much as possible we will save a lot on research and development. Are we against R&D? No, but wasting money on reinventing the wheel over and over again, is what has caused the effective collapse of the US space program. But in fact a lot of research has already be done in the last fifty years on this subject. Much more research will not make space colonization to happen any sooner, on the contrary. Of course some research has to be done, but only when necessary to solve practical issues.

A Proposed Calender for Space Settlers

NB. My proposed calendar is not intended to replace any calendar in use here on Earth.

Introduction

The Gregorian calendar which is the mostly used in contemporary society is not quite suitable for Space Settlements. Therefore we will propose a new calendar to be used in space colonies. Why is our current calendar unsuitable for space colonies? There are several arguments against the Gregorian calendar, one of them is that it is not a perpetual calendar, which means that each year starts on a different year. Further it is a very strange idea to base the calendar of a space colony on the earth’s seasonal cycle, while space settlers are in full control of the length of their days and thus of their seasonal cycle. Therefore there is no need for adjusting the calendar of a space based society to the solstice.

Proposal

Our proposal is based on Irv Bromberg’s Symmetry454 calendar, with a few modifications. According to this plan each year is divided into four quarters, which are divided into three months. The first and third have each four weeks, the second has five. Like our current calendar the symmetry454 calendar preserves the seven-day-week, which in my opinion an important feature. However as I have said, I have a few amendments.

Bromberg has proposed to start his calendar on Monday January 1, 2005 in order to ensure that each year starts at a Monday. Our suggestion is to start our calendar on Thursday January 1, 1801. Why this date? On this date Giuseppe Piazza discovered Ceres, the first asteroid known by humanity. Since asteroid mining is the key to space colonization, this particular event of immense significance of every space based civilization. This will have as a side effect, that each year will start on Thursday and end on a Wednesday, however we do not consider this as a big issue. We could simple make Wednesday as the civil rest-day, of course anyone who wants to keep Sabbath on Sunday (or on Saturday or Friday) will be free to do so.

By changing the start of the calendar we can also use this opportunity to implement a fully secular year counting, which is important given our commitment to Secular RepublicanismIn our proposal the year 1801 AD will be year 0 Anno Cereris, all years before will be referred to as minus <year> Anno Cereris.

Another amendment we want to suggest, is to get rid of leap years. As I have explain above, space settlements have no reason to adjust the calendar to earth’s seasonal cycle. Therefore we do not have any need for leap years. This is quite a difference for Bromberg’s proposal, in which once in the five or six years there would be a leap week (to be calculated according to a rather complicated formula).

Of course having a year with just 364 days and no leap years, will have as a consequence that our years will run faster than “terrestrial” years. This is however no real problem, the proposed calendar for Mars colonies runs significantly slower than Earth’s, but until know I have not the impression that this a big issue among Mars enthusiasts.

Days of the week

Our proposal for the days of the week is to name them after the colours of the rainbow. Thus: Thursday will be “Red day”, Friday “Orange day”, Saturday “Yellow day”, Sunday “Green day”, Monday “Blue day” (no irony intended), Tuesday “Indigo day” and Wednesday “Violet day”.

Names of the months

In order to prevent confusing, we should give the months of our calendar different names as those of the Gregorian calendar. However we have no particular proposal for these, but our suggestion is to begin their names with A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L and M respectively. This in order to make it easy to distinguish them when abbreviated.

Manifesto part 3

Resources from Near Earth Objects

Near Earth Objects (NEOs) are a collection of comets, asteroids and some other objects within the orbit of Mars. Most of these objects regularly come within close range from the Earth, some of those objects are actually easier to reach than the Moon. This seems strange, but in space travel access is not measured in distance but in velocity increments (delta V), which is a measure of the required energy. Because of the Moon’s mass it takes more energy to get to the Moon. And if we want to leave, we have to overcome the Lunar escape velocity.

In order to reach the Near Earth Objects, we have only to overcome a relatively small change in our position relative to the Sun. (Delta V is related to the local escape velocity from the Sun, which is a function of the distance from the Sun.) Therefore we need a rather small delta V to get to the Near Earth Objects. Of course the actual required velocity increment depends on the exact position of a particular object, but since there are several thousands of them we will simply pick one which is relatively close.

The major advantage of NEOs as a mining site, is that they contain a broad variety of resources. Unlike the Moon NEOs contain all chemical elements needed for a modern industrial society. And since NEOs have a negligible gravity, only a modest amount of fuel is required to return resources to Earth or anywhere else in space.

In situ resource utilization (ISRU) is the use of extraterrestrial resources at or near the location where they are mined. ISRU is opposed to importing resources from our planet. One example: the American space company Bigelow Aerospace has designed and built inflatable space stations. Suppose we buy one and we launch it to, say, L4. There we inflate the structure with air, which we have extracted from a Near Earth Asteroid. This example show the benefits of ISRU, by using air from NEO resources we can reduce the payload we need to launch from Earth. Basically we should restrict ourselves to launch only those items which cannot (already) produced in space, in order to reduce launch costs.

The extraction of resources from NEOs, is also important in funding space colonization. Especially the (limited) export of the precious platinum group metals will an important source of revenue for Space communities. The prospect of for-profit asteroid mining also makes it possible to do space colonization without government funding.

After some time, when space based industries are more developed we need to import less from Earth, since more products are manufactured locally. One development which is of interest of space colonization is 3D printing. This technology is also called rapid prototype technology or desktop manufacturing. 3D printing makes it possible to produce complicated structures in short time without a large workforce. Once a structure is stored in a computer file it can be printed on demand. Of course this technology has its limitations, but the prospects are quite promising.

Manifesto part 2

Why Lagrange point colonization

When most people think about space colonization, they think about colonies on the Moon or Mars. Some people conflate the concept of space colonization with faster-than-light travel (which is impossible), and think about conquering other stellar systems. This is NOT what Republic of Lagrangia is about. We are aimed at colonizing free space by using space habitats. A space habitat is simply a large space station able to house a large number of people, most designs rely on centrifugation for generating artificial gravity.

The great advantage of space habitats is that we can locate them anywhere we wish. They can be relocated if necessary, if for example we live in the close neighbourhood of a hostile space colony (or a hostile Earth), we can move away from them. Another possibility is avoiding collision with meteorites. This is impossible if you are living on the Moon or Mars, technically speaking it is possible to move these objects, but it take you an immense amount of energy to make even a slight displacement and due to their masses almost any significant displacement will have unintended consequences for other bodies in the Solar System (Earth in particular).

The next question is of course, where should we locate our space habitat? There are a lot of possible location, each of them has their benefits and disadvantages. Most people would think about placing space habitats in an orbit around the Earth. Main advantage is that they are close to Earth, therefore travel time is short (from a few hours to a few days). This location is historically defended by most space advocacy groups. The foremost problem with cislunar space colonies is that they suffer from regular eclipses. This problem can be reduced by placing space habitats farther away from Earth, but this also increase travel time. Another problem is the lack of resources in the Earth system.

An obvious, but misleading, objection is that there are resources on Earth and on the Moon. Why should you go to live in outer space if you need to import everything you need from Earth? True, during the first days of space colonization a lot of stuff need to be imported, but after some time space colonies will become more and more self-sufficient. And the Moon is rich in some resources, especially titanium, but is also poor in others (most importantly hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen are hard to find on the Moon). Secondly the Moon is massive enough to require a relative high escape velocity (compared with Near Earth Objects) and it cost more energy to reach the Moon than the Near Earth Objects.

An attractive location for positioning space colonies are the fifth and fourth Sun-Earth Lagrange points, which are in co-orbit with the Earth. Bodies placed in or around these points have a stable orbit. Further these points do not suffer from eclipses caused by the Earth, therefore we can rely on continuous operational Solar power. One problem is that it takes several months to reach them, but we have to realize that a few centuries ago it would take several months to cross the Atlantic. But this did not stop European countries from colonizing the Americas. Yes, the long travel time causes several challenges, but we believe that man can overcome this. Proper planning and design are a key to success.

Another advantage of the fourth and fifth Earth-Sun Lagrange points is the presence of so-called Trojan asteroids. Currently the existence one such an object is confirmed, it is reasonable to assume other Earth Trojans exists. As I will explain in the next section, asteroids are the treasures of the Solar System. Even if there no other Earth Trojans, or those which exists are of poor composition, then L4 and L5 can be used as a destination for relocated Near Earth Asteroids. Some space advocates argue in favor of capturing asteroids and to relocate them into an orbit around our planet. I do not believe this is a good idea, we can easily see the danger of this mission. Many people on this planet would consider this as an unacceptable risk.

The long travel time from Earth to the fourth and fifth Lagrange points has also benefits. If for some reason the communities of the Lagrange points got in conflict with terrestrial nations, they effectively protected from military aggression from the Earth. Any hostile missile has to transverse for months through space and can be detected remotely by proper equipment.

Manifesto part 1

Reasons for Space colonization

In this section we will explain why we are in favour of space colonization, and the next section we will also explain why we want to colonize the so-called fourth and fifth Lagrange points of the Earth-Sun system rather than colonizing the Moon or Mars. Although many of our arguments are not original, actually most of our main arguments exist since at least the late 1960s, we will present our reasoning from a point of view which is based on classical republicanism and classical liberalism.

Traditional arguments for space colonization are overpopulation and the survival of humanity. Since the world population continues to grow, some people fear that at one time in the (near) future there are too many people. Overpopulation is the situation that there are more people on Earth than our planet can sustain (this is the idea behind the ecological footprint). Believing that birth control programs will not work or will be insufficient, some people believe that therefore a part of our species should be relocated to other planets or to artificial space habitats. The fear for uncontrollable population growth was especially great in the 1970s (see for instance the establishment of the club of Rome). Since then the growth rate of the world population has declined, and many experts now believe that the number of humans will stabilize at nine to ten billion by the year 2100. Of course we cannot predict whether there will be a baby boom somewhere in this century, but it is unlikely that the world population will triple during the next 100 years.

There are several so-called existential risks for humanity, varying from natural to man-made catastrophes. The idea is that in order to guarantee the continued existence of the human race, a part (or even all) of humanity should be relocated into outer space, in the event of a global catastrophe. However some of those potential catastrophes, especially those created by man, can either be averted or their consequences can be reduced. Other potential risks are only a problem in billions of years, which raises the question why we should take action right now, while there are more urgent problems (like the HIV/aids pandemic). Some people, like for instance the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, would argue that humans shouldn’t reproduce in the first place, and therefore such far-into-the-future problems, such like the Sun entering into the red giant stage, are irrelevant. Given that the chance for a global catastrophe which is able to wipe out the human species, to happen within the lifespans of all currently alive people is rather small, we can ask whether we have a moral responsibility to ensure the continued existence of mankind. Different people will answer this question differently.

Traditionally there is also a third reason for space colonization. Although this one is not as popular as the first two, but we believe this third argument is possibly more important. We could call this one the economic argument (we could call the first and second argument the demographic respectively the survivalist argument). As more people are the joining the global middle classes, more people will buy cars, washing machines and other consumer goods. In order to meet this increasing demand, more and more resources are needed. If for example every person on Earth would be able to buy a car, we should switch to, for example, hydrogen cars. But the required fuel cells need a lot of platinum, and everyone knows that platinum is a very rare resource, at least here on Earth. Asteroid mining could easily provide enough platinum for a full-scale hydrogen economy (I will ignore all criticism of the hydrogen economy here, because that is outside the scope of this manifesto). Beside solving issues of resource depletion, asteroid mining can also reduce or eliminate environmental damage caused by terrestrial mining. The reader may point out that asteroid mining is not the same as space colonization. This is true, but asteroid mining without space colonization is practically impossible. Even if we have a nearly completely automated space mining industry, we still need a (small) space based crew in case of some unexpected problems.

However, we believe that the most important reason for space colonization is what we would call the political or utopian argument. Here on Earth civil liberties are under pressure almost everywhere, and since many resources (e.g. food and oil) are increasingly becoming scarce we expect that political freedoms will be even further restrained. Except for a piece of Antarctica known as Marie Byrd Land, almost all land on Earth is claimed by governments. Therefore it is almost impossible to create a new country on Earth without war. Secondly it is hard to impossible to implement large reforms in existing societies, see for example the massive demonstration currently held in many European countries.

Republic of Lagrangia believes that every society, whether on Earth or in Outer Space, should have the right to organize themselves as they see fit. We also believe that every person should have the right to choose in which society he or she wants to live. Therefore we do not believe in forcing existing terrestrial societies to implement the reforms we wish to implement, our only option is to move to Outer Space.

We realise that different people want to live in different kinds of societies, but the beautiful aspect of Space Colonization is that it provide both the space and the resources for a wide variety of societies. Suppose that one group disagrees how some Space community is run, they can simply take their stuff and go to somewhere else to create their own community. No need for violent separation movements and related civil wars.

Peaceful coexistence will be the cornerstone of the relation between Space Nations, people will move to those societies they like most or they will try to create their very own. This kind of freedom does not exist on Earth nowadays.

3D printing and space colonization

Part One of this of this post was originally posted on blogspot.com on November 4, 2012 and Part Two was published there on November 24, 2012.

Part One

As you can read in our manifesto  we have high esteems of the prospects of 3D printing. This technology will make it possible to produce customized spare parts anywhere they are needed. In combination with in situ resource utilization, 3D printing will lessen the dependence of Space settlers of importation of goods from Earth.

Why do we have such a hopeful view of 3D printing? This article on BBC News shows that it is possible to print the parts of guns with a commercial available 3D printer. Not that we advocate this particular application of 3D printing, far from it. But that some technology may be used for (possibly) illegal application, is not a reason for banning it (this would as absurd as outlawing the Internet, only because Internet has mad it easier to spread child pornography). For instance knifes can be used for legal purposes like cooking, but also for murdering people. The use of technology of illegal purposes should be banned, not the technology itself, certainly if the noble applications are much more important.

That said, I will return to my argument. If it is possible to print parts of guns, it will be possible to create many more stuff. Notice that a properly working gun is a moderately complex object. Within a few years from now, 3D printers will be able to create almost every part we need, including the parts of a 3D printer itself. It is not hard to imagine to bright prospects of 3D printers for space colonization.

Once 3D-printing has advanced to the point that nearly all things can be printed, we need only to bring one 3D-printer (or at least its dissembled components) to outer space. There we can print new printers, thereafter we can produce all the stuff we need, while simultaneously weakening our dependence of Earth based supplies. Which is important, because it makes Space Settlers less vulnerable from extortion and blackmailing from Terrestrial powers.

Part Two

A couple of weeks ago I did a post on 3D-printing, today I found the following article. This article describes a method to print electronic circuits, which a of huge importance for space colonization. We cannot think about space colonization or space travel in general without the extensive use of electronics.

This new development will make the production of cheap electronics reality. And by moving such 3D-printers into outer space, Space Colonies will become self-sufficient much earlier than I would have ever dreamed. As I have explained in my earlier post, the dependence on the import of components from Earth is both expensive and will make Space Colonies vulnerable to sabotage by terrestrial parties.

I am interested to learned what is next regarding 3D-printing.

Why the current proposals for Space Tourism are a dead end

There are nowadays dozens, so not, hundreds of companies offering or planning to offer tourist trips to outer space. Most of this proposals only provide a flight up to a hundred kilometres above the surface of the Earth, technically this is outer space. But those trip only offers a few minutes outside our atmosphere, so we don’t consider this as “real” space travel.

Of course we believe that anyone should have the right to start his/her own space travel agency, we of course want to do same in a few years time, but we seriously doubt whether these current initiatives are helpful for the start-up of human settlement of Outer Space. First most space tourist companies are not interested in permanent settlement of space, since they didn’t have the budget to support such colonization programs.

But our second and most important argument is, that many space tourists companies, ask much money from their would-be costumers. There is a large range in prices, but they are usually in the order hundred thousands to millions of dollars a flight a person, this means that only a few people in the world can actually afford this. Further of the worlds millionaires only a small percentage is likely willing to pay a large sum of money for a few minutes in Outer space. So we expect that these initiatives wouldn’t succeed due to lack of sufficient demand.

Our conclusion is therefore that the current Space Tourist proposals are a dead-end to humanization of Space.

O’Neill Cylinders and spatial planning

This post was originally posted on blogspot.com on October 18, 2012

In an earlier post I discussed the potential of Bernal spheres and Stanford tori for city states, in this posting I will discuss several ideas for the spatial planning of O’Neill cylinders.

The ideas I will discuss here are not developed for space colonization as such, but can nevertheless be very inspiring for Space settlers. Especially for the larger space habitats spatial planning is an important topic. In this post I will discuss three proposals: O’Neill’s own idea, Ebenezer Howard’s garden cities and the ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright. The purpose of this post is not to force a certain spatial plan on to Space colonies, but rather to provide a framework for developing better societies.

Since O’Neill cylinders provide a large plot of usable land, they allows for more sophisticated spatial planning then smaller habitats. The latter will typically be highly populated and most of their usable land will be used for housing and closely related activities. Consequently the smaller habitats will lack any significant amount of nature (forests for example), while many, if not most, people will appreciate nature.

Since the days of O’Neill, the consensus among space colonization advocates (and we follow this) is that industry, agriculture and living should be separated (the first two should not be located inside space habitats), this is an important difference with terrestrial spatial planning. Combined with the practically unlimited resources in space, we are free to design the interior of an O’Neill cylinder as we like.

In his book, The high frontier, O’Neill has given an example of spatial planning. In chapter 5 he describes the build cities at the ends of each stroke of land, referred to as “valleys”, and using the land areas it self for villages, forests and parks.

It would be interesting to look at a few spatial planning concepts from the past. In the 1930s the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright  designed his famous Broadacre City. In this proposal “true” cities would disappear, while people would spread out over the country (for this reason his plan was not very popular outside the USA). One feature of this scheme was that each family receives a 4,000 square meter plot of land [1]. Which was to be developed according to wishes of the receiving family. While there many really good aspects to his vision, there is some important critique about the Broadacre City idea, which can be found here. A serious drawback of the original design is that it heavily depends on automobiles for transportation. In a space based nation, in which people are spread over many different space habitats, cars are really cumbersome to handle. As O’Neill explained the main modes of transportation in and between space habitats are space ships, maglevs, bicycles and walking [2].

My personal favorite is, however, the garden city, a concept developed by Ebenezer Howard around 1900. In short this urban design is an attempt to reconcile the city and the countryside. In Howard’s plan a garden city should require 6000 acres of land (which is approximately 25 square kilometers or 2428.2 hectare), of which 1000 acres are used for the actual city and the other 5000 acres are destined for agriculture [3]. As I have already said, most space habitat advocates favor a physical separation of agricultural and living areas. At first sight Howard’s idea seems to be outdated, and it is to some degree. Nevertheless I believe that this garden city concept is good starting point for our own spatial plans. We should look for alternative destination for these agricultural lands, a portion can be reserved for allotment gardens, while another portion is reserved for sport associations (think about field hockey clubs, rugby clubs and so on). In Howard’s original designs there is a remarkable lack of recreation areas (to be fair Howard planned a park in the center of his city, but this is one is to small for serious sport practice.)

The actual city itself, would be an annulus around this central park and would be divided into six wards, each with 5,000 inhabitants. This would give a total city population of 30,000 thousand, in addition a further 2,000 would live in the rural area of the city. Howard also thought about what to do when the city population would grow, unlike the natural course of urban growth by which new buildings are attached to the existing settlement, he foresaw to build new garden cities a few miles away of the old one. In fact he suggested to build a central city, a garden city with 55,000 inhabitants, first  and later to build six (normal) garden cities around it. The central city would serve as a regional center. This particular configuration is not feasible for a standard O’Neill Cylinder (diameter 6.4 km and length 32 km), but is we would increase these dimension s with a factor 5 (which would give an areal increase of a factor 25) then it would become an interesting option. However such O’Neill cylinders XL will not be realized in early space colonization.

A different but related concept is Columbia, Maryland. Like the conglomeration of garden cities, the different villages of Columbia are not one single area but separated by green areas (called the Tivoli garden). The city’s 100,000 residents [4] are spread among nine villages, with a land area of 82.7 square kilometers (compare this with a valley of 107.23 square kilometers). If we would organize a valley in a similar fashion as Columbia, than we would get a city with population of between 130,000 and 143,000 [5]. In order to keep this city mostly car-free, they designers envisioned a minibus-network.

As I have said at the beginning of this post, the purpose of the mentioned examples is to inspire the spatial planners of O’Neill cylinders. And I hope they will not make the same mistakes as those made by terrestrial urban planners. Space colonization is a nice occasion to experiment with innovation on spatial planning. Of course the specific spatial plans will depend on the political choices made by the owners/governments of space habitats, different political ideologies require different spatial plans. The examples I selected here, reflect my personal believes about decentralized republicanism with its preference for small non-urban communities as the framework for active citizens participation in public affairs.

Notes

[1] A valley of a typical O’Neill cylinder is 3.35 by 32 kilometers, which is 107.2 million square meters. And using Wrights 4,000 square meters per family, we can calculate that a valley provides land for 26,800 families.

[2] I will discuss transportation in space colonies more deeply in another post.

[3] Using the standard dimensions of a O’Neill Cylinder (length 32 km, diameter 6.4 km), we can calculate that each valley can host 4.4 garden cities. This gives a total population of 141,000 people for each valley (4.4×32,000).

[4] Originally (in 1966) it was estimated that Columbia would have 110,000 residents in 1980.

[5] The lower estimate is based on Columbia’s current population, the higher one the estimate from note [4].

Advertisements

For the establishment of secular, liberal, humanist and republican space settlements