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.

Advertisements

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].

Bernal Spheres, Stanford tori and the return of the polis.

This post was originally published on blogspot.com on April 23, 2012; updated June 13, 2014.

In this post I want to share some thoughts I have had for many years, concerning the ancient Greek city-state, or polis (plural poleis) and what we can learn from them.

Both O’Neill’s Island I and its main competitor the so-called Stanford torus are designed for some ten thousands of inhabitants, roughly the population of many small cities. And since space habitants of this kind can easily moved to any place within our (inner) Solar system, they can enjoy a great amount of isolation just by keeping distance from other space colonies. Furthermore the abundance of space resources makes economic self-sufficiency not only feasible but also very likely.

Here on Earth no country can turn to a policy of full autarky without paying a huge price. Effectively only very primitive societies can be autarkic without giving up current wealth. One reason of modern globalization is that highly technological industries require large amounts of various resources, of which many are both rare and spread over different parts of the world. Some resources are as good as exclusively found at one place on Earth. Some argue that this interdependence promotes world peace, while on the other hand  we see that competition of scarce resources actually lead to many international conflicts.

In space there is a different situation, since there are a lot of recourse rich asteroids. Actually some “small” asteroids contains a few times more resources than anything ever dug up by Mankind, not only these asteroids have a huge abundance of resources but they also contain virtually all chemical elements needed by highly industrialized societies. A second difference is that competition among space colonies for resources will be low, due to great amount of asteroids, reducing tension among Spacer societies.

We can easily imagine that a small space colony, type Bernal sphere or Stanford torus is located near a small asteroid (dimension less than 1km). Such space society will be economically and politically independent from any other state (whether Spacer or terrestrial). This comes very close to the ancient Greek ideal of the polis: a political independent community of a few thousand people and economically self-sufficient.

Since the time of the ancient Greeks the ideal of small independent communities have repeatedly promoted by political activists. But these ideas and initiatives are repeatedly defeated in favour of the nation-state. A modern incarnation of this attitude is Communalism as conceived by Murray Bookchin. Bookchin, who stood in the anarchist tradition, opposed the nation-state, because it is undemocratic and a tool for corporate interest. Instead he argued that people should organize direct democracy at municipal level. And in a next stage, such municipalities should organize themselves into confederations, these confederations should compete with the Nation State for power. Confederations of municipalities differ from nations in an important way: the municipality is the primary political unit and the municipal citizens’ assembly is the Sovereign; the confederation is just an organization for cooperation and joint action by municipalities, and the representatives of the municipalities in the confederal council are purely coordinating and administrative.

Personally I believe that Communalism and its aims are not realistic, on Earth, because nation states are too well-organized and most terrestrial people don’t care about politics in general, and specially they don’t care about the Nation State. I suppose that most readers of this blog have never heard about Communalism before. On Earth I see no future for Communalism and related ideologies, but in Space Communalism and its idea may play a major role. Although I am not a Communalist myself (mainly because I disagree with its anti-capitalist nature), I believe that Communalism can provide valuable insights on how to organize Space colonies.

Some Space colonies may opt for Communalism, while other colonies will try other forms of government. But I believe there is a future for small polis based political communities in Space.

Inside view of a Bernal sphere

Interior including human powered airplane

 

 

Outside view of a Bernal sphere

Bernal Spheres - exterior

 

Planetary chauvinism

This post was originally posted on blogpot.com on July 31, 2012

In this post I will deal with the subject of planetary chauvinism and more specifically I will explain what planetary chauvinism is and why it is dangerous.

Essentially planetary chauvinism is the idea that human life should be based on the surface of a planet or planet-like object, such as the moon. In several earlier posts I have presented my objections against terraforming, lunar settlement programs and the colonization of Mars. All of these “space” colonization proposals are based on planetary chauvinism.

The origins of planetary chauvinist attitudes are simply based on psychology and ignorance. Many people believe that since humans have always lived on a planetary surface for ever we should do so in the future. Of course this is a logical fallacy, some practices we humans have done for centuries, slavery for instance, are now universally rejected or abolished. The other pillar of planetary chauvinism is ignorance, although many are familiar with space station like mir and the ISS, not very much people seem to know about the designs of space habitats capable of accommodating several thousands of people. Nor are there many people who realize that asteroids instead of planets or the moon are the true treasures of our solar system.

The question is why planetary chauvinism is dangerous. Many so-called “space programs”, regardless whether they are pursued by governments or private parties, are focused  on creating permanent bases on the moon or Mars. Although a lot of people seems to know about the dangers of low gravity on human health, the simple solution, rotating space habits in free space, is almost unknown outside the space advocacy movement. Not only is the low gravity of the moon and Mars a problem, but space habitats are actually cheaper than terraforming Mars, building domed cities on the moon. Why should we waste money on settling other planets, while with less money we can do the same job with free space habitats?

But the main danger of planetary chauvinism is that it will undermine the public support of any future space settlement program. Many ordinary people nowadays associate space colonization with settlements on Mars or on planets in other system. Since most people understand that these projects are costly and will take centuries to complete, they will tend to argue not to spend any money on those projects, regardless whether this is through taxation or private donations.

Planetary chauvinism with its narrow mind undermines the attempts to show the general public the real prospects of space development programs: the utilization of the resources from Near Earth Objects and the creation of space habitats. And by doing so planetary chauvinism is working against any serious space settlement program, therefore it is important to combat planetary chauvinism.

Breakthrough artificial egg cells

This post was originally posted on blogspot.com on November 24, 2012

The following article on BBC News describes a new technology to create egg cells, and although this technology currently only works for mice, I think this is an important development. In this post I will discuss why discoveries like this one are important for space colonization programs. In an earlier post I discussed some applications for artificial reproduction in space colonization.

My main point in that post was the need of a large gene pole. A low degree of genetic diversity will lead to inbreeding, which is usually associated with increased risk of genetic disorders. Unless we will apply strict genetic screening of immigrants, space populations will likely only exist for some generations. Even with genetic screening, we have the problem that most people are carriers of a few defect genes. The only way to solve the problem of a small gene pool, is to increase diversity. This can be done in two-way: massive immigration or import of human gametes.

Large scale immigration has multiple side issues: from a technical point of view we have to deal with the bottleneck to space, current rocket based space launch systems have limited capacity to send people to space. (We believe that all proposals for non-rocket space launch, are unlikely to developed soon, see also this post.) All best case scenarios predict that only a few hundred people can emigrate to space each year.

Another issue related to mass immigration is social-cultural and political. Space communities will most likely have very restrictive admission policies, and will select only those potential immigrants on whether they have certain desired qualifications and whether they do share the political ideology of a particular space colony. For example a more socialist oriented space colony is not likely to be willing to accept immigrants who are opposed to socialism.

The second solution for increasing genetic diversity is by importing human gametes. Human sperm can easily be collected on Earth, space governments could offer reasonable cash amounts to men in return of their sperm. Once collected, sperm is easily stored and transported, one launch could easily carry the sperm of several thousand males. The collection of human egg cells is much more difficult, eggs or ovary tissue can only be collected through surgery. It is clear that buying human eggs is much more expensive than human sperm, we have now also to pay for the surgery.

However this problem would be solved if we would be able to make egg cells from skin tissue, which can be collected in almost every reasonable hospital in the world. The procedure of collecting skin tissue is much less intrusive for women. Tissue cultures are just like sperm samples easy to store and transport into outer space.

Sperm donation and artificial egg cells will make it possible for Space communities to develop gene banks with high genetic diversity without the difficulties arising from (mass) immigration.

More:

Artificial sperm is also possible http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14404183

Why rockets are necessary for Space Colonization

This post was originally posted on blogspot.com on May 11, 2012

In this posting I will argue why we should stick with chemical rockets for our program of space colonization.

Many proponents of space colonization are in favour of several types of non rocket space launch. Most commonly proposed are space elevators and projectile launchers, their advocates favor these because they believe that is launch methods will lower the costs of launching objects into orbit (and beyond). At this moment it costs us$10,000 to us$25,000  per kilogram to launch something into space (Wikipedia, see here) and its argued that the minimum energy required for space launch is much less than with rockets and so it would, in theory, to lower the costs of space launch (the Wikipedia article don’t show any explanation for this claim, so I am somewhat skeptical about it).

Although multiple launch schemes are proposed in the past, however no one, save for chemical rockets, has actually proven to be successful. Yes, there have been a multiple test of several proposed systems, but none of them has ever launched anything in space. Chemical rockets are proven technology, quite easy to build. This will lower our development costs, this is very important if we want to start with space colonization as soon as possible. Although the several proposals for non rocket space launch will work in theory, and they may lower launch costs, we cannot know when these methods are ready to use. Here we can compare this with the research on nuclear fusion power, which has started at same time as nuclear fission, but today there are still no commercial fusion power plants (at this moment they are not expected before the 2050s).

If, say, research will show that rail guns are the most efficient method of space launch, but it will take fifty years before this will be operational, then we should not go for it. Why? Because no one will invest in such project if there is no guarantee that it will work, while in the meantime it will not generate any revenue. Unlike in the case of fusion power research, which is funded by governments, we cannot afford to waste our time with developing speculative technology. Many space advocacy groups have lost their credibility because they were not able to come with realistic plans to get started with space development within the next ten to fifteen years. With realistic plans I mean plans that not rely on governmental funding and have clear ideas about generating revenue for repaying investors. In an upcoming post I will present a plan, which I believe will satisfy my criteria. Instead many “space advocacy” groups are wasting their time and their money with lobbying, not very successful if we look at the miserable state of the US space program. Also in an upcoming post I will argue why space tourism will not helpful for space colonization, this because many space advocates believe that space tourism will act as a catalyst for space development.

Since at this moment chemical rockets are the only proven method of space launch and we do not have the time for develop more speculative technologies, we should stick with chemical rockets. Even if could reduce launch costs, we have to take into account development cost and since we cannot predict the actual amount of time and money spent in research, we cannot afford to take this risk. Not that I am against research, but we should devote most of our funds and time for solving the real issues of space colonization, not for reinventing the wheel over and over again. This is actually what NASA is doing, while the Russians are using the same launch system for decades, with several improvements over time.

Rockets are maybe not the most efficient launch system, but at least they work.

Noah’s Ark 2.0

This post was originally posted on blogspot.com on April 23, 2012

In our post on meat production in outer space we briefly addressed the problem of transporting herds of animals from Earth to Space colonies. Transporting small animals like dogs and cats, will not a big deal. But larger animals like cattle or horses are much more difficult. The primary problem is with mass, launching a certain mass of payload from the surface of the Earth, cost much more mass of fuel, see Tsiolkovsky’s rocket equation. This equation tells us that it will be almost impossible to launch an elephant from Earth to Space colony. Recall that from an orbit around our blue planet to the Lagrange points of the Earth-Sun system, will only take a little amount of energy and propellant mass.

If we want to bring animals to Space colonies, we should take as little as possible. In theory we should take only a couple, one male and one female, and then breed from them as many as necessary. But there is one big problem with this approach: inbreeding. In order to reduce the negative effects of inbreeding we should increase the number of transported animals, and so increasing transportation costs. There is a simple solution for these dilemma: nowadays sperm and eggs (female gametes) can easily be stored. And by this method a relatively small space craft can transport a large collection of genetic information of several species and multiple individuals of each species. When this cargo of sperm and eggs arrives at the Space colony, scientists can create new embryos by using in vitro fertilization.

You may argue that even if we create embryos we will still need some female of each specie. This is true to a certain degree, yes we need a womb, but this doesn’t need to be one of the same species. Currently scientists are researching interspecific pregnancy, this made it possible to implant, say a horse embryo, into a cow. A potential problem with this technology is as follows: a certain female animal may carry only a young with a smaller than a certain size, for example: a domestic cat cannot give birth to a bovine calf. But even this problem is possibly to solve. We can imagine that some small animal A gives birth to little bigger (at adulthood) animal B, which on her turn can give birth to an ever bigger (at adulthood) animal, etcetera. Of course this procedure will take some time, but it is possibly our only option.

A technologically more advanced solution will be the use of artificial wombs. In theory these can be made of any size, and will allow us even to breed elephants in Outer Space. However, currently is this technology not fully developed, so at this moment interspecific pregnancy is our best option. But if reproductive technology advances artificial wombs will provide us an ideal solution.

Some thoughts on terraforming

This post was originally published on blogspot.com on October 22, 2011

Terraforming is a recurring idea in both science fiction and real proposals for space colonization. In the latter it is often seen as a logical next step after initial settlements on other planets. Actually there are in space colonization theory two different approaches: 1. colonization of celestial bodies (moons, planets and so on) and 2. using space habitats (free-floating space stations intended for permanent settlements).

Terraforming is, of course, part of the first approach. For some reason approach 1 is the most dominant and best known version of space colonization in both science fiction and public knowledge. We of Republic of Lagrange are, however, supporters of approach 2, which we’ll discuss in an other post.

Terraforming is seen by some planetary chauvinists as the ultimate goal of space colonization. But we want to discuss some issues related to terraforming.

The most important problem of terraforming is the rather small amount of planets or other bodies in our solar system which can be terraformed. Actually only two bodies can be terraformed: Venus and Mars. All other proposed candidates for terraforming have too less mass, to maintain an atmosphere. Although the scientific study of terraforming started with Venus, most likely candidate for terraforming is Mars.

A problem with Mars, and to a lesser degree also with Venus, is that Mars is a lot smaller than Earth. Therefore Mars’ total surface area equals Earth’s total dry land area. Calculations show that if Mars is changed into a blue planet approximately half of its surface will be covered with a two kilometer deep ocean, and so reducing the potential area for settlements. If we use Earth’s current population density, this gave living space for some three billion people, that sounds a lot (and it is), but if future space civilization grows to a multiple tens of billions people, the combined surface area of Earth and Mars, whether or not terraformed, is much too less.

The same problem also goes up for Venus, although this planet has some ninety percent of Earth’s total surface area (both land and water). But in order to remove the thick and carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere, some propose to introduce large amounts of hydrogen into the Venusian atmosphere where it should react with CO2 to water and oxygen. However this would cause a Venusian ocean which covers eighty percent of the planet’s surface, with a depth of some hundred meters. A quick calculation the remaining surface will provide Lebensraum for some 4.7 billion people (assuming current terrestrial population density).

Our preliminary conclusion has to be that terraforming only offers a limited amount of land for space colonists. We have to terraform both planets in order to allow a doubling of Earth’s population (at current density).

But is far from the only problem of terraforming, in both cases the total costs will be enormous, Mars will probably be cheaper than Venus, since the former is easier to terraform. And in both cases it will take centuries before the process is completed.

So the question is whether we should go for terraforming Mars and Venus? Honestly, I think we shouldn’t. In each case we need to move vast amounts of resources through the solar system. We could make better use of those materials than for wasting them in terraforming. Free space habitats are cheaper, faster to realize and easier to move. And resources in the solar system allow space habitats to increase mankind’s living space with a factor thousand.

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