The sci-fi cities of Bezos’s Blue Origin derive from his teacher Gerard O’Neill

https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/05/space-colony-design-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-oneill-colonies/589294/

by tshannon • 7 years ago

105 133 7 years ago

PaulHoule3• 7 years ago

Let's see...

Getting resources from the moon seems out-of-date these days because the moon is far away in terms of energy even if it is close in distance. Getting resources from asteroids makes more sense.

As for Reagan and Thatcher I don't see either one as oriented toward growth, but rather oriented towards a "war against inflation" that involved higher interest rates, austerity, and tolerance for a lower rate of GDP growth so long as the pain was felt by the middle and below. Reagan might have had sharper rhetoric against environmentalism, but the movement did not collapse until the Clinton years.

When I've been envisioning space colonies lately it has been really large structures; I am fascinated by the idea that you can build a "small ringworld" where the rotation holds in the air with a scale size of a megameter or so, particularly if you can keep the upper atmosphere cold.

The rotation speeds of such a thing are close to orbital velocity and the material requirements are similar to that of a space elevator... Unless you can construct an orbital-velocity bearing in which case you can build a belt around it to reinforce it.

Even then it is hard to build room for any vertical relief into the budget, no high mountains, no deep oceans, probably you get a rather uncomfortable hydrological cycle.

It would probably look different from one of those O'Neil colonies since you'd have a very blue sky and most of the things that look different from a planet would be far away and would look small. A lot depends on if the z-axis of the colony is long or short.

PaulHoule3• 7 years ago

I don't know why I always get voted down pointing out the obvious on moon vs. asteroids...

https://www.permanent.com/asteroids-vs-moon-private.html

m4rtink6• 7 years ago

Still, moon has some gravity, making it possible to use some terestrial mining techniques and hardware and has more or less unlimited energy once you have a self-sustaining solar panel plant going.

The general idea for ONeil cylinders has been to build them in Moon-Earth Lagrange points with lunar material launched by solar powered electromagnetic mass drivers.

So the distance from Moon is not really an issue.

PaulHoule3• 7 years ago

The L4 and L5 Lagrange points that O'Neill advocated in the 1970s really make no sense.

Halo orbits around Moon-Earth and Sun-Earth L1 and L2 make a lot more sense because they are energetically cheap to get to. L4 and L5 are a ghetto.

Tech like the mass drivers can move material from the asteroid belts in more cheaply than it can from the lunar surface. You also have to consider what it costs to stop the projectiles when they get where they are going (one reason to use the Earth-Moon L1 because you can hit it with nearly no excess velocity)

headcanon2• 7 years ago

Getting resources from the moon seems out-of-date these days because the moon is far away in terms of energy even if it is close in distance. Getting resources from asteroids makes more sense.

You're right about raw energy, but one advantage of the moon is that you can build electromagnetic mass drivers that can sling raw material into orbit without affecting the natural orbit of the body (technically you are but only negligibly). For asteroids, you probably have to haul the whole thing back into Earth orbit for it to be useful, and you'd probably have to use some kind of propellant.

Also asteroid missions have much longer timelines if you have to go all the way out to the belt to get them. Less so if you get a near-earth rock, but those missions are pretty complex if trying it in Kerbal Space Program is any indication, and getting it wrong can be catastrophic. Many countries might not take too kindly to people wanting to sling city-destroying rocks around. Moon seems safer in that sense as a first option.

The two aren't mutually exclusive of course, and there are advantages to both. I imagine we'll see both strategies employed in a variety of different ways.

philwelch17• 7 years ago

Ringworlds and orbitals are significantly bigger and harder to build than O’Neill cylinders. O’Neill cylinders are potentially feasible within a century or two; ringworlds and orbitals would take much longer.

wongarsu4• 7 years ago

O’Neill cylinders are potentially feasible within a century or two

Is there anything fundamentally holding us back from building one right now? I mean there's the obvious problem that nobody has a good reason to build one, and only a hand full of entities have the funding to do so. But the engineering challenges seem to be on the level of building LHC or ITER: not nessesarily easy, but very doable.

dukoid• 7 years ago

Does it need to be a full ring from the start?

stcredzero4• 7 years ago

Getting resources from the moon seems out-of-date these days because the moon is far away in terms of energy even if it is close in distance.

Being close in time is still a factor for manned missions when starting out. If something goes very wrong, rescue is only a few days away.

cameronbrown3• 7 years ago

If space missions become common enough then we'll probably have some kind of navy designed to accommodate for this problem.

Like a stellar breakdown service, always in the area

blotter_paper• 7 years ago

Looking at these huge open spaces, I can't help but wonder what would happen after a single crack from oncoming debris. To avoid failing all at once a space habitat should be divided into a bunch of smaller sub-compartments -- like the Titanic!

gamegoblin3• 7 years ago

Something that is sometimes pointed out about holes in spacecraft is that you don't lose air as fast as movies would imply. After all, the pressure difference between inside and outside is only 1 atmosphere.

For instance, if a micro-meteor created a bullet-sized hole in the International Space Station, it would take 5-10 minutes for the air pressure to drop to 0.5 atmospheres. The kilometers-scale space colonies described here would take much longer. More than enough time for some drone to patch it, or for the inhabitants to get to "life boats" or some sort of shelter.

I think the important part, then, would be to design the shell such that damage in one part can't spread too far.

m4rtink6• 7 years ago

Exactly - these thing as designed by ONeil are HUGE - 30 km long on the "default" island three type.

The solid walls would be meters thick, so the projectile would have to be very masive and/or very fast. And even then it would take a long time for pressure to reach dangerously low levels.

ForHackernews• 7 years ago

On the ISS, they plugged a hole with a finger + tape: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/08/30/international...

JulianMorrison• 7 years ago

Not very vulnerable to small random space debris, but a terrorist explosive would be a different matter.

I can't see habitats like this existing except in the presence of an extremely peaceful and unstrained humanity-wide society.

philwelch17• 7 years ago

I think we’re probably a century away from actually finishing an O’Neill Cylinder. Bezos was taking a strikingly long-term view—-he was discussing the transition from a Kardashev I to Kardashev II civilization. We haven’t even reached Kardashev I yet.

stcredzero4• 7 years ago

Looking at these huge open spaces, I can't help but wonder what would happen after a single crack from oncoming debris.

Some more modern rotating habitat designs have a solid, stationary radiation shield with no breaks or holes. Light is instead provided by LEDs and solar panels. Many of these designs are modular, so have sub compartments.

m4rtink6• 7 years ago

Well, you could definitely do an ONeil island 3 without the windows and youbwould get twice as much habitable area as a result. The Rama craft from the Encounter with Rama trilogy is basically that.

RivieraKid• 7 years ago

Or, incoming debris can be tracked using lidars and destroyed before it gets close.

patagonia3• 7 years ago

Just watch Prometheus. This is the same hubris and greed, even if well intentioned.

As the other commentator said, they are too fragile to serve as humanity’s “back-up”. As theme parks or transit vessels, sure. But not as our back-up.

Second, and in my humble opinion more importantly, these will tend to be built and owned by entities and thus everyone in them will be serfs. I honestly can’t say that a similar scenario wouldn’t play out for a planet, claimed as owned by the first flag planted. But, when the structure is wholly built and owned by a profit driven entity such as Amazon... Perhaps they can be owned by consortiums or non for profit entities, there is still issue #1.

Finally. Why build one of these (gravity levels or for transit, I guess being the valid reason I can see, but maybe there is a planet-based solution for the gravity issue, idk) instead of utilizing the planets that are already right there for the using??? And instead of using all the resources to build a habitat, build something else.

Edit: These are hotels, not homes.

gamegoblin3• 7 years ago

Bezos addresses your final question in the presentation. The livable planetary surfaces other than earth (Moon, Mars, maybe Ganymede or something) aren't that big. In total they sum up to somewhere in the realm of Earth's land surface. So inhabiting them is "only" going to enable doubling the human capacity. Whereas space itself will increase human capacity by many orders of magnitude.

phkahler• 7 years ago

Make underground tunnels on Mars. Excavation should be easier than building structures in space. Safer too.

patagonia3• 7 years ago

I’m willing to wager that by the time we are concerned about finding homes for another full earth load of humans we will be spreading out far beyond just the Moon and Mars. And, as part of an effort to “back-up” humanity that is a good thing. We should be on many, many planets and in many solar systems.

To that point. If one of these habitats is built the first ones should serve as transit vessels to nearby systems, with the final destination of its crew being a planet.

Additionally, let’s take Bezo’s own logic a step further. When gravity levels are less than that of Earth, say, on the Moon, we we’ll be able to build much higher with greater economy. And we will be able to build into the Moon with greater economy as it is 60% the density of Earth. This effectively increases the livable area, if we are to count “engineered surface area”. The same is true of other planetary and Moon surfaces in our solar system.

You once again are left justifying the effort of building the habitat instead of extending the pre existing available planetary foundation

icegreentea22• 7 years ago

These statements are always fantastical. When we talk about humanity exceeding Earth's resource footprint, the issue isn't land in itself. All of our immediate issues come from balancing:

a) How do we harvest energy b) How much non-human components do we want to leave, and in what configuration, given that significant non-human components are currently required to give us a livable environment c) How do we distribute resources

Yes ultimately all of those are constrained by land area, but we have so many other things to solve first before land area is THE problem. And hilariously, it's more or less the same problems we need to solve before we need to colonize anything. How do we efficiently (measured in materials, surface area, maintenance, capital, operating cost) collect energy. How do we create and maintain true closed systems that are reasonably conducive to non-shitty human lives. How do we spread the wealth so we don't burn it all down.

shrimp_emoji• 7 years ago

they are too fragile to serve as humanity’s “back-up”. As theme parks or transit vessels, sure. But not as our back-up.

I think this is correct. In fact, where we live now, on a (big) planet, should be our "backup" in that you can have subterranean arcologies that protect you while your habitats are blasted by gamma ray bursts, supernovae, or what have you. (I stress big because I think we need Earth's gravity; I don't think you could lead a healthy life on Mars or much less the Moon.)

But what makes planets terrible for being your "main space" is that the climates and biology are harder to control (climate change, zoonotic pandemics, volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.), resources are harder to get (they're buried deep while a wealth of exposed ore exists in the inner Asteroid Belt and a wealth of exposed ice exists in the outer Kuiper Belt), and as someone else here said the space is ironically much smaller than what you could have in a space habitat by surface area or open volume. The gravity's free -- you don't have to spin like you would on a habitat, but you pay for that by the fact that it's very hard to leave. You need to use half your fuel just to reach parking orbit, and it's untenable to build a space elevator. (A space fountain[0] might be doable, but it's still an ordeal.) It only becomes tenable when the gravity's much lower, but then we'll probably run into physiological problems.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain

sigstoat• 7 years ago

Just watch Prometheus

or watch some movie with lots of space stations where things are great, and draw the opposite conclusion!

fiction isn't evidence of anything.

patagonia3• 7 years ago

Fair enough. Watch the news. We can’t engineer complex systems without loads of issues. iPhone. The shuttle. Tax code. So, what makes you think we’re gonna nail it when we build one of these???

headcanon2• 7 years ago

IMO we do ourselves a disservice by thinking of space colonization as a "back-up". A better way of thinking about it would be that a civilization that can build these habitats, or terraform another planet, also has the technology and resources to fix environmental issues back home. These are of course not short-term goals - I'd consider a 500-year timeline for habitats like the ones pictured above optimistic. But I'd much rather we start now rather than wringing our hands over shorter-term issues like how we think of climate change now.

gumby• 7 years ago

Those NASA pictures from from a 1975 government document entitled "Space Settlements, a Design Study". I have a copy right here.

It has been scanned ( https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/s.s.doc.html ) but a quick click around didn't show any of the cool paintings.

drchewbacca• 7 years ago

There's some cool paintings here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colon...

T-A• 7 years ago

Another good one:

https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/70sArt/art.html

sys_64738• 7 years ago

Given Amazon want to automate humans out of their logistics process here, why would they do anything with humans on the moon?

wongarsu4• 7 years ago

The same reason oil rigs aren't fully automated: Humans are very versatile and agile.

audienceofone• 7 years ago

The whole presentation is made to emotionally engage an audience of one. One nostalgic non-reader who cares fuck-all about science but who probably remembers those 70's vintage color plates and is all about big ego-driven projects - i.e. Mr. Space Force.

I don't believe for a second that Bezos thinks significant numbers of people living in floating habitats is happening any time soon if ever, but I do think he wants a bite at a contract to go to the moon, and everything about this media push down to the 2024 timeline (call me, mr president) is about pushing those buttons in one particular man's lizard brain.

Tuna-Fish• 7 years ago

Bezos has been pushing space colonies consistently since before he founded Amazon.

dang• 7 years ago

Could you please stop creating accounts for each few comments you post? That's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it. HN is a community, and it's important for community that users have an identity that others can relate to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I've written about this many times here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Also, this comment is much too much of a flamewar rant to be a good comment for HN. If you have a substantive point, please make it without stooping to that.

rezeroed2• 7 years ago

HN is not a community when drive-by down-voters are allowed. If they provided a comment with their down-vote that would be community.

philwelch17• 7 years ago

The idea feels out of date because optimism about the future is out of date. More people are willing to believe that humanity should go extinct than believe that humanity should colonize space. The author’s foil for Gerard O’Neill is none other than Rachel Carson, whose advocacy against pesticides has directly led to countless human deaths from otherwise-preventable diseases like malaria. Instead of someone like O’Neill who tries to figure out how humanity can grow and flourish throughout the solar system, our hero is the savior of the mosquito.

rexpop• 7 years ago

It's easier to imagine the end of the world then the end of Capitalism.

— Frederic Jameson

jerf5• 7 years ago

The funny/stupid/ironic thing is, the reasons people think humanity should just "go extinct" are all the reasons we should move to space instead. There's no story of "ecosystem damage" where there is no ecosystem in the first place.

Though based on my experiences on HN, even some people here need this really bashed into their heads, that we can't hurt ecosystems that don't exist. ("What if some do?" Then by all means worry about them, but by resources, they are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what the universe has.) There is a major unexamined assumption that people have that life exists everywhere, and therefore we can't put a toe outside our planet without stomping on something, simply because that's our Earth-based experience. Once brought to the conscious level it's obvious that it's false, but it's hard to get it up to that level for some people.

philwelch17• 7 years ago

Yeah, the great thing about an O'Neill Cylinder is that the sooner people can move there, the sooner they can leave the Earth well enough alone. (Although in reality, I think the real challenge is going to be responsible stewardship of the Earth, not just "leaving it alone". Even the Amazon rainforest is likely an artifact of human culture.)

max764• 7 years ago

There is a major unexamined assumption that people have that life exists everywhere, and therefore we can't put a toe outside our planet without stomping on something, simply because that's our Earth-based experience. Once brought to the conscious level it's obvious that it's false, but it's hard to get it up to that level for some people.

I think it is likely (20% or greater) we will compete for resources against non-terrestrial lifeforms before humans leave the solar system, assuming we leave the solar system.

Earth doesn't contain the majority of all water in the solar system. Earth might not even contain all of the liquid water in the solar system. What are the chances that liquid water exists in Ceres' core, or under the icey surface of Europa or Ganymede or another moon? What are the chances that Martian ice, or Europa ice, or Saturn's ice have microbes frozen in them, possibly able to thaw given better environmental conditions? We might even find life in places without water, such as Titan's methane lakes. Titan has a methane cycle very similar to Earth's water cycle. Methane makes a great rocket fuel. Water makes great rocket fuel and is necessary to life support systems.

We have a history of taking what we want without regards to the consequences or whom it hurts. If we don't compete with other life when we leave Earth it's because other life isn't out there, not because of our strong morale core.

ridgeguy• 7 years ago

There's no story of "ecosystem damage" where there is no ecosystem in the first place.

There's also no story of humanity where there is no ecosystem in the first place.

I think the hazard isn't in stomping on an exo-Earth ecosystem.

I think it's that if we can't avoid damage to multi-billion year evolved, robust ecosystems on our home planet, we might not successfully craft off-planet ecosystems that will sustain us indefinitely.

dmitriid• 7 years ago

If only there was a large spinning habitat in space with a livable environment that our species could use...

If only there was a large spinning habitat in space where the megarich could use their money to create a paradise for its inhabitants...

Gravityloss• 7 years ago

Kenneth Ewart Boulding would like to have a word with you...

On an orbital colony, there are life maintaining systems and it's probable that people will have different ideas how much they would require maintenance.

Likewise, there will be limited resources and probably again people will have different ideas on what to spend on the short term. Ie a kid would like ice cream but the parents know they could starve before the next harvest so better to spend that energy on some more efficient food.

lostmsu• 7 years ago

Maybe optimism is out of date on average, but there are quite a few folks (including myself), who are very optimistic about the future.

philwelch17• 7 years ago

Me too. But I'm not optimistic about the optimism of others.

JohnJamesRambo• 7 years ago

What a completely bizarre opinion on Rachel Carson. How many deaths did she prevent by pointing out the health drawbacks of spraying the world in DDT and other non-specific chemicals dangerous to life?

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry...

From- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[38]
Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[88]
Studies are inconsistent on whether high blood DDT or DDE levels increase time to pregnancy.[65] In mothers with high DDE blood serum levels, daughters may have up to a 32% increase in the probability of conceiving, but increased DDT levels have been associated with a 16% decrease in one study.[89]
Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions[87]
Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[65][90] Mothers with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism.[91][92]

There are other less toxic alternatives to DDT for mosquito control and Rachel Carson helped open our eyes to the fact that they are needed.

natechols• 7 years ago

The slur against Carson is a myth that got started in the last couple of decades by anti-regulatory think tanks as a way to attack one of the foundations of the modern environmental movement. It's complete nonsense because 1) DDT spraying is still considered a legitimate method of mosquito (i.e. malaria) control, which was never the main problem anyway - widespread agricultural use was what led to "Silent Spring", and 2) DDT resistance eventually limited its effectiveness even for mosquito control. Read "Merchants of Doubt" if you want the gory details.

darkmighty• 7 years ago

What about realistic optimism ?

I firmly believe in space colonization, but I also firmly believe in realizing things, not just pushing propaganda or fantasy (sometimes with ulterior motives). O'Neill cylinders as a panacea are just that, as far as I can tell (I admit I haven't seen any objective analysis on it; my total guess calculation would put it at say $20M/person absolute minimum for a large city of say 1M persons -- which would be several times the US economy or the assets of a large number of most valuable companies combined).

We just can't not fix Earth. There's no alternative. I've studied quite a bit about Mars colonization (and have my own thoughts about colonizing other places -- in particular I find underground habitats in Mercury intriguing), and it is quite clearly a project for the end of the century at least. Even when the soil, the gravity, and the materials are all more or less at your disposal, it's still extremely difficult to kick start a quasi-self-sustaining manufacturing base, even less one capable of producing exports and growing rapidly. The cost constants per inhabitant are very high.

Like anyone else, I think we need to move off this planet as soon as feasible. But we need a real vision, and we need to do it in a way that makes us truly more resillient and further reaching -- that is, we need colonies to be self-sustaining to the point of surviving catastrophe on other colonies without themselves disappearing -- this is the truly worthwhile goal I believe we need to pursue.

Imaginary space cities relying thousands of billionaires / millions of millionaires spending all wealth on are not that.

Heck, I even believe in Interstellar colonization in the not-too-distant future.

See also, other strategies for ensuring human survival:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17646897

(Underground habitats on Earth)

travisporter• 7 years ago

Not sure why you’re downvoted but I don’t think Bezos’ sentiment is to give up on earth.

jackcviers3• 7 years ago

Every species has the biological imperative. Each species has the right to compete with all other species for environmental resources with all of their evolutionary advantages in order to survive.

It isn't humanity's fault that it can expand into and create its own environment suitable for propagating into. We shouldn't allow ourselves to perish into extinction if we have any other option. There is no more moral grounds for the intentional mass-murder of the human species than there is for the intentional destruction of any other species.

If people have tried humanity and are actually advocating its demise, I'd have to ask upon what grounds humanity had been found more wanting than plants or any other species known to have caused mass extinctions throughout known history. If humanity deserves to die, I think we should offer to allow the most ardent of species mass-suicide to go first.

devoply4• 7 years ago

We have 8 billion humans, humans don't need saving as much as the 1 environment we have needs saving.

welly2• 7 years ago

"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"

- George Carlin

stcredzero4• 7 years ago

Issac Arthur has covered more modern near-future rotating habitat designs: (As well as much larger, further future designs.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JAU3w9mB8

There are more recent designs which use solar panels and LEDs for lighting, which allows for the use of entirely stationary radiation shielding.

DesiLurker• 7 years ago

Big shoutout to SFIA for covering such 'out of the world' futuristic matters!

nobody271• 7 years ago

I thought the whole presentation was pretty cool. Those colonies are just visions of what might be built by future generations. He has new ideas about the future of industry and that's exciting. But I have a hard time seeing the scales he's talking about. Those colonies would not be able to hold billions of people. I'm not sure if moving industry off of Earth, especially for environmental reasons, makes a lot of sense. But when people imagine the future as being exactly like the present it's just tiring and stupid. I don't think he was acting like he knew all the answers but he's moving forward.

philwelch17• 7 years ago

But I have a hard time seeing the scales he's talking about. Those colonies would not be able to hold billions of people.

It entirely depends on how many of them you build. You could also achieve much higher densities than Earth with no real loss of quality of life, since you wouldn't necessarily build massive oceans or deserts or mountains. (Though I would really love to live on an O'Neill cylinder that was laid out as an archipelago!)

DennisP• 7 years ago

Also, if we get to a point where we can build them from carbon nanotubes, we could make them the size of continents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKendree_cylinder

okintheory• 7 years ago

Anyone who spends more on escaping Earth than on saving it is saying f*ck you to most of our 7.7 bio. people.

walrus01• 7 years ago

Excepting the fact that technology developed for space (1957-present) has made huge improvements in ground based life.

At its absolute peak the Apollo program consumed 4.4% of the US federal government budget.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

wongarsu4• 7 years ago

Even technologies that are not direct spinoffs often benefit greatly. For example the Apollo onboard computers created demand for smaller computers, accelerating development of integrated circuits and dropping their price. Some credit Apollo with singlehandedly dropping IC prices from $1000 to $20 [1]. If it wasn't for Apollo we likely wouldn't be on this forum.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_integrated_ci...

viklove• 7 years ago

As a society, we can allocate resources to both of these problems in order to ensure the longevity of the human species. This kind of defeatist attitude is what's holding us back.

jerf5• 7 years ago

How efficient of us to be already bored of something that can't exist any sooner than 50 years from now.

dfawcus• 7 years ago

It has been decades since I read the High Frontier, but as I recall on of the ideas was that the stations were initially there (in simplified form) to allow for Orbital Power Satellites to be deployed and serviced.

It would be nice if we could deploy such, assuming we manage to avoid them being used as microwave weapons.

wbraun• 7 years ago

My first though is who would populate these cities. Secular society does not seem capable of reproducing at above replacement rate and global population is expected to peak and start declining this century. Would people start having more children again if housing was plentiful?

fallingfrog2• 7 years ago

Here’s the thing: it is probably possible, given enough investment, to get a self sustaining civilization in space started. But it wouldn’t necessarily help the people still on earth very much.

Take any island nation: Iceland for example. They have a small population so they can’t make everything they need; they import lumber, cars, food, etc. And they always have, right from day 1 that the island was settled.

In space however the cost of constantly lifting goods from earth is too high to do that forever. So they have to be totally self sufficient. That means manufacturing, energy, extraction of minerals from asteroids, everything has to be in place. I’d say minimum 10 million population before they can assemble the diversity of industries to do that.

Once they are at that point though, what are they going to trade with earth? Any minerals they obtain will be better used in space then parachuting them down to the surface for processing. So they wouldn’t need us at all. So it’s possible but politically very difficult to justify.

fallingfrog2• 7 years ago

Oh, and I forgot the obvious danger: any people in space always have the “high ground” militarily since they can drop a rock on us whenever they want. So we’ll be in no position to make demands either.

rezeroed2• 7 years ago

Bezos is in PR and sales pitch mode for his sight-seeing trips. Watching a launch involves listening to an endless marketing and sales pitch from that woman who speaks like she's going to hock a loogie.

The sci-fi cities of Bezos’s Blue Origin derive from his teacher Gerard O’Neill

Related Stories