That is to say, a righteous screed about suburbia and authenticity,and our intellectual betters (just ask them!) in the “studies” departments, by Lileks, unleashed by the not-to-be-lamented death of Paolo Solari.
You know, it strikes me that these snotty urbaphiles should love the idea of space colonies, at least in the regard of their being planned communities.
Space colonies like those proposed by Dr. O’Neill would indeed be planned communities, but than that is a simple consequence that the government is the only one with the deep pockets to build O’Neill habitats.
Space settlements by contrast will be private affairs and develop organically driven by economic geography just as human settlements always have been.
BTW that is also a key difference between colonies/settlements and why I always use the term space settlements. The definition of colony is a population living in a distant land under the control of a government. By contrast settlement is defined in geography as simply a group of dwellings leaving the question of ownership and control open.
Space settlements by contrast will be private affairs and develop organically driven by economic geography just as human settlements always have been.
Just like the settlements on Ellesmere Island.
“BTW that is also a key difference between colonies/settlements and why I always use the term space settlements. The definition of colony is a population living in a distant land under the control of a government. By contrast settlement is defined in geography as simply a group of dwellings leaving the question of ownership and control open.”
Yes, colonies do seem like they under the control of a government-
they seem indicate isolated and forgotten.
Plantations in which people are stuck there and are most likely wishing they were anywhere else.
They’re goading me Rand, they’re goading me… [Think Roger Rabbit behind the wall with the evil guy knocking the two bits knock.]
Ken,
Not sure why as Mars settlements will definitely be developed organically and not as any type of planned community.
But if you are looking for something to do while Rand is at Space Access you might go over to Huffington Post. Seem Sarah Palin has declared war on Elon Musk.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/sarah-palin-tesla-
elon-musk_n_3061733.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Sarah Palin Tesla Swipe Leaves CEO Elon Musk ‘Deeply Wounded’
The Huffington Post
By Nate C. Hindman
Posted: 04/11/2013 12:14 pm EDT
Updated: 04/11/2013 2:34 pm EDT
Thomas, is this the link? Sarah makes good points and Elon has the chance to address them.
But the main point is the crony capitalism and money laundering that goes on. Elon is simply playing the game by the rules he’s given. Sarah is rightly pointing it out.
Was there something more or is that it?
Tesla that turns into a “brick” when the battery completely discharges and then costs $40,000 to repair
Is all Sarah said and is totally accurate.
Apparently this has happened to about ten roadster owners. Elon claims it will not happen with the model S. This may even be why Elon has offered to take roadsters in for trade in on the model S.
We all know that Elon is not perfect, but with SpaceX he is giving us a future.
That is the link, but her key attack was on how “loser” firms like Telsa get federal money and go under when in reality Elon Musk is paying his loans off early.
[[[Palin’s Facebook post criticizing Tesla focused on the news that Fisker, an electric car company that received a green-energy loan from the Obama administration, was laying off three-fourths of its U.S. workers. “Americans really need to get outraged by these wasteful ventures,” Palin wrote. “As we’ve seen time and time again, We the People are always stuck subsidizing the left’s ‘losers.’”]]]
And that is what upset Elon Musk, being called a “loser” by someone who is a real loser.
Don’t be angry at Palin, direct it at the person who screwed up so many loans that people would assume that anything out of that horrible program would also be a massive failure. Obama’s failures make Musk look bad by association.
Wodun,
Except that your perceptions don’t match the facts.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/25/marc-thiessen-distorts-success-rate-of-clean-en/186692
[[[In fact, the failure rate for federal green energy investments is far lower than that of private venture capital investments in clean energy, and the majority of the loan guarantees are low-risk.]]]
But by screaming about a handful of failures the Tea Party, as usual, distorts the fact that the majority of those getting the loans are doing well. Or like Telsa, going great.
The point is, it doesn’t matter how well or not the program is doing. It is not a proper role of government to be a generalized investor. In short, the proper role of government is basically punishing criminals and preventing foreign invasion.
“Investments” in green energy companies, Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, TARP bailouts, QE3 endless money printing, Pell grants, etc etc, are all improper roles of government. By this, I mean it is morally wrong to forcefully confiscate someone’s personal wealth for purely redistributionary purposes, mostly to give to people just because they exist, and which is what most of the budget of the government is going to nowadays.
So, it seems like you are missing the overall Tea Party point. The government should not be “investing” in these companies at all, even if “good” comes out of it, because that is not the role of government to start with. The fact that there is waste and lost money on failed companies is just rubbing hydrochloric acid into the already gangrenous would.
Someguy,
Actually I agree the government shouldn’t subsidize business, which is why I have continuously opposed NASA’s subsidies of space firms (which most here praise) using COTS/CCP/Commercial Crew. Those programs are even worst since the firms in the green energy programs are at least focusing on true commercial markets, not “pseudo” markets like ISS, and they are required to pay the money back, unlike the New Space firms.
But the point I was making was Sarah Palin, as usual was ranting without bothering to research the facts, namely that Telsa is not a loser, but a profitable firm which is repaying its loan early. But then that seems to be the Tea Party way to rant first and ignore facts. And bash the folks that are actually producing wealth, unlike Sarah Palin who built her career on the public dole as a politician.
So you are saying that the abysmal record of the government giving money, and losing it, to the green industry is outmatched by the private sector losing money on the green industry. Looks like a bad sector to pump billions of dollars into. Thanks for making my point stronger.
And looking only at the failure rate ignores the massive sums of tax payer money now firmly stuck in the pockets of political donors.
Oh and one more thing, screaming about a handful of failures while ignoring the successful stories, is what you do with the TP.
Just keep telling yourself that government spending on solar panels and electric cars is a smashing success and ignore all of the bankruptcies.
Wodun,
I wouldn’t call a 96% success rate abysmal.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-abound-solars-bankruptcy-says-about-the-doe-loan-program
[[[It has a 96 percent success rate and the endorsement of an independent Republican consultant.]]]
But again its about taking the time to do actually some research instead of just focusing on the headlines. But its much easier to focus and rant about the handful of failures and ignore all the success stories like Telsa…
In fact, the failure rate for federal green energy investments is far lower than that of private venture capital investments in clean energy, and the majority of the loan guarantees are low-risk.
Come on, Thomas. Don’t fall for that. There are several things to note. First, they’re comparing apples and oranges. This is supposed to be business loans not high risk VC investment. Plus, private VC doesn’t dump that kind of money in for their risks. They aren’t that dumb.
Second, the loans don’t make business sense. For the solar plants in the loan program, they’re borrowing $3 or more per watt of peak solar generating capacity. As I understand it, there’s no business case for it above roughly $1 per unsubsidized watt. These only can make a profit due to government subsidies on renewable energy (and as the number of bankruptcies show, sometimes not even then). When the subsidies go away (say due to a Republican government purging the opposition’s rent seekers), then those assets will lose value and the loan will go underwater. The current alleged share (13%) of bad loans will go up.
Karl,
You know what is really so funny about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party types attacking President Obama over the clean energy loan program? It not his loan program!
The loan program was created by President Bush and a very Republican Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/epa.html
The loan program was greatly expanded during Obama’s administration. And loan decisions which we’re questioning were for the most part made during the Obama era. But I’m not surprised that Bush had a hand in the mess.
That’s the problem Thomas, with taking the word of the Huffpost and not looking at the actual post they are mischaracterizing. The only thing Sarah said about Tesla was what I quoted. She was talking about govt. not being in the business of picking winners and losers.
the Obama administration attempted to pick “winners and losers” in the free market.
It’s not just Obama of course. The problem is the government making outrageous sized loans. Which is what they do for crony money laundering to be effective.
Ken,
No, its taking the word of Elon Musk.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/statuses/321342187067543552
But I guess you don’t follow him 🙂
But as you see Elon’s real followers recognize Sarah Palin for what she is 🙂
See, screwing up your “I don’t need to make a profit, the U.S. taxpayer has my back” business so bad it makes headlines isn’t “failure” in Thomas’s book… as long as it’s a fellow Party member doing it. Subjective reality, same as always.
DaveP,
No, its about Sarah Palin, a professional politician who only knows how to tax wealth (see how Ms. Tea Party taxed the oil firms in Alaska below…) calling a wealth creator like Elon Musk a loser.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil
Originally published Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM
By Ángel González and Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporters
[[[Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.]]]
But then of course that was before Sarah Palin reinvented herself as a Tea Party guru being against higher taxes…
Back on subject, photos of these apartments make me glad I bought land years ago. I hope I get to keep it, as living in an vertical prison such as those shown would drive me to leap over the side.
Solari’s “arcology” of Arcosanti is in Cordes Junction, Arizona, not all that far south of me, and I pass it when en route to Phoenix. I’ve been to see it… and to be honest, I had low expectations, and they were met.
It’s been under construction since 1969. It’s supposed to house 5000 people. It houses 50 to 150, mainly students, and most of those in very poor conditions.
Most of the buildings are cast concrete and not too well done.
It’s basically a collection of largish cast concrete structures, with not a great deal else.
As for space colonies (actual space colonies, not surface colonies) I hate to say it, but my guess is they will have to be planned communities – essentially arcologies. As such, it might (MIGHT!) be worth looking into whether it would be useful to build one on Earth as a learning experience… though perhaps like Biosphere2 it’s way too much cost for way too little gain.
I’m not fond of “arcologies”. I don’t call them arcologies. I call them hives.
Oath of Fealty by Niven and Pournelle features an arcology; they made the designer a wannabe starship designer.
Oath of Fealty has a largely sympathetic portrait of arcologies, in substantial part from the anti-crime perspective: understandable for a book written in the Los Angeles of the early 1980’s. Niven and Pournelle also portray the loss of privacy that could ensue with such living arrangements. A complex novel that mostly holds up well today, and is by no means a full-tilt endorsement of arcologies or Soleri.
Arizona CJ,
Yes, indeed you will need to build test analogs on Earth before ever building them in space, if for no other reasons to test out the various systems. Really its no different that test firing rocket engines in a test stand to make sure they work before using them in the rockets themselves.
The problem with the arcologies I have seen, like the O’Neill habitat designs, is far too much time is spent focusing on the art and philosophy of the design while far too little is spent on practical engineering and economics.
Earlier you called them private affairs but considering the maintenance and safety issues, they are likely to be anything but private. A home owner’s association would be too small. Most likely need something of the scope of a city government and that could take any number of political forms.
A corporation could take the place of government but any group of individuals banding together to pay for construction and maintenance while also writing regulations, has just formed a government.
Wodun,
Not necessarily, there is a long history of corporations running towns for their workers. The difference here is that the shareholders of the corporation will also be the settlers living in the settlement.
Also the size of most space settlements is actually smaller than most home owners associations so that might indeed work as a model. Remember we not talking about the massive O’Neill type settlements, but ones that are actually feasible economically and based on real world engineering.
Plus, using Ken’s models, there is no reason the groups providing life support and energy couldn’t be tun as separate entities, just like utilities are today.
The small size would also permit volunteer fire and police departments, just like many small communities in the U.S. have. And a town hall meeting model, as is common in New England could work well for creating and passing any laws needed. So government, such as it is might well be limited to just locally elected judges or even just a Justice of the Peace as was true in many frontier communities in the U.S.
The risk of Pauly Shore starring in Biodome2 may be too great a risk for humanity.
On the plus side, I’ll give Soleri credit – he didn’t try to make anyone live there, and it’s entirely self-funded by volunteers.
Let hippies try any voluntary organization and ridiculous plan they want!
(Perhaps others will learn by example…)
Solari’s approach to living in a planned, total, ‘organically’ laid out facility was SO appealing to the masses, that in a town planned for thousands, hundreds have shown up. And in a world where Islamofascist take down buildings with airplanes, constantly saying they’ll kill all the non-Muslim men, rape the wives and indoctrinate the children, in a world where tin pot leaders like that Elvis looking nut job in NK has nukes and missiles that could reach 40% of the world’s land masses to carry such nukes, living en masse, stacked up, cheek by jowl doesn’t seem like the way to go.
Dispersing the ‘targets’ is the best bet for living in the 21st Century.
That, of course, leaves out the entire part about people being free to do as they damned well please in the U.S. and much of the world. Most of us are still free to choose living 28 miles from the nearest town in Montana, or in the wilds of NYC. And many of the people I know in places like NYC, LA, or even places like Columbus OH, Ft. Smith AR and Lexington KY, are feeling the pressure of those cities growing too large and too hectic. They used to live in the low key outer burbs of those cities, now they’re 2 or 5 miles inside city limits, with all the congestion, and silly rules that entails.
Give me Montana, any time.
Der Schtumpy,
That is why I live in Elko, Nevada, 200 miles from the nearest big city, Boise Id. 🙂
I’m not entirely certain that space settlements will be planned either. Not at first, anyways. They might start with a few Bigelow-like modules near an asteroid (for mining purposes) and grow over time. Like a one-stoplight town in North Dakota transforming over time into something somewhat urban.
Eventually, a century or two from now, when space settlements are a more proven thing, and people know better how to live and work there, there might be bigger development projects. Like building an O’Neil cylinder or Bishop ring. But even then, it might not be all at once. Picture a Bishop ring circling an asteroid – the width of the ring could start at some minimum size, and then be expanded over time. “Time to add another 2 k to the ring.”
My theory being that anything that happens in a bootstrap, ad hoc and organic manner is much more likely to happen than “quantum leaps” like Arcosanti.
Can you build a O’Neill colony a bit at a time? Don’t you basically have to have your two cylinders or nothing at all? I would imagine that it would operate like old-time land speculation – auction off the internal plots to speculators, who’d subdivide and market off in turn. The zoning codes would have to have teeth in them for environmental balance and usage reasons, but otherwise it’s land, isn’t it? The need to pay off on the investment would require a pretty fierce land-rush, I’d think. If the need wasn’t there, your colony corporation would go bust with a vengeance.
Well, if the O’Neill colony is of the form of a long cylinder, you can build it incrementally as a series of rings. As to how to build a ring? I suppose one way would be to bend a long strip of extruded hot metal (you can easily make longer and shorter, wider and skinnier, thicker and thinner strips of such metal once you have the basic process working, so this is another incremental manufacturing process) and then heat temper it to remove any remaining bending stress. Add bells and whistles.
Karl,
Yes, NASA already demonstrated the technology in the 1970’s.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/DistantSuns/distantsuns_chap06.html
[[[So it was that NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center awarded a $635,000 contract to Grumman to build a “Space Fabrication Demonstration System”; that is, a beam-builder. The first such device was completed and delivered to Marshall in 1978. On May 4, 1978, it produced its first beam in ground test.
The beams it fabricates are both lightweight and strong. A one-hundred-foot length weighs only 85 pounds, yet will support a load of 1,260 pounds. The beams are triangular in cross section and a meter deep. (The depth of a triangular beam is the distance from one corner to the opposite side.) They are made up of long strips of angle aluminum supported by cross-braces. The long aluminum edge members are formed from rolls of sheet aluminum; the machine pulls out aluminum strips from the rolls and forms them into the proper angled shape. The cross-braces are made beforehand and packaged in magazines, which fit to the side of the beam builder. They are withdrawn automatically, somewhat like giant staples, and the machine automatically welds them to the edge members. With one supply of rolls of sheet aluminum and of full magazines of cross-braces, the machine can turn out a thousand feet of beam in as little as two hours.]]]
Although the design produced straight beams there should be a way to also produce beams of a constant curve as well using pressure applied at the exit point.
OK, if we’re talking Island Three here, no, you *can’t* just build out the cylinders incrementally, not unless you’ve come up with some way to accordion the rings out from the interior. They’re hollow tubes with internal atmosphere, and a shell of regolith to provide sufficient shielding that the interior isn’t a radioactive hell. *Maybe* you could figure out how to excrete a cylinder from a building rig a bit at a time, but the idea of having the partially-built cylinder both under spin and pressurized during construction is kind of… intimidating. And Island Threes have to be operated in pairs for load-balancing reasons, is my understanding. They counter-rotate in order to preserve momentum and gyroscopic balance, I think? I dunno, I was a history major…
I don’t see the problem. If you’re doing large scale manufacture of habitats in the first place, then you already have solved the hardest problems.
You can add rings from the outside in balanced pairs spinning in opposite directions to match the cylinders they’re being added to. Put in an internal divider to keep the pressurized sections pressured, spin up the rings you want to add till they match the cylinder they’ll be attached to, and weld them on. When you’ve expanded to your desired length then seal off the new section with more internal dividers. Add regolith or whatever, atmosphere, stabilize the mess chemically, and there you go – a shirt sleeve environment ready for new settlement construction.
Brock,
Exactly. Like frontier communities in the U.S. they will expand beyond the first dwelling naturally and the locals will work out some way to get along as it does so.