SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Most practical Space Craft - Ever!
date
newest »
newest »
R. wrote: "Sorry that is not practical. If the human body is adapted to living in space, how are they going to visit planets where normal 1 G gravity would make them invalids? People can live in space, but they are naturally going to want to visit planets for recreation, business, etc. Where are they going to retire when they are done working in space? I just do not see people condemning themselves to low gravity environments for life. It could be tenable for a select few, but to have robust commerce it will require that the space-based workplace is adapted to humans not the other way around. "You're thinking too small, too inside the box.
You could have on-demand cloning as John Varley does with his Eight Worlds series. Or multiple bodies the way Chalker does in Downtiming the Nightside, or a distributed brain like Anne Leckie's Ancillary books. Telepresence and android bodies are also options.
Also, "condemning themselves to low gravity environments for life' is kind of judgey, isn't it? That's like someone proclaiming, "I can't imagine being condemned to live the rest of my life in a city/the country/the suburbs/on an island/in the mountains." Maybe some people would prefer living in space forever.
If I were forced to live in a big city, I'd very likely go crazy. Yet the majority of the world's population intentionally live in cities, many of them numbering in the millions per city. But I would never think that someone is "condemned" if they have to live in a city. Some of them apparently prefer it.
Trike wrote: "Maybe some people would prefer living in space forever."or like the Belters in Leviathan Wakes or The Culture in Iain Banks.
Alex G wrote: "Trike wrote: "Maybe some people would prefer living in space forever."or like the Belters in Leviathan Wakes"
I was just thinking that. Eventually it might become a massive money or culture gap between those who live terrestrially and those who live in space. The Belters in the Expanse don't all just move to Mars or Earth because a) a lot of them were born/raised in low-gravity in the asteroid belt and physically can't handle it too well, b) socio-economic reasons. The Belters are portrayed as, by and large, pretty poor and workman-like. The idea that they would for some reason feel drawn to move to/visit a planet they've never been to and indeed have been in open conflict/argument with is a bit of a fallacy.
Obviously that's specific to the Expanse, but it is very easy to imagine the same sort of cultural/social divide occurring once humanity proliferates throughout the solar system.
Liam wrote: "Obviously that's specific to the Expanse, but it is very easy to imagine the same sort of cultural/social divide occurring once humanity proliferates throughout the solar system."Absolutely. And people can be fiercely protective of where they grew up.
Also, there can be a variety of experiences within a similar environment. I've seen people be militant about growing up on islands, like the girl from Hawaii who felt a "special bond" to the guy who grew up in Puerto Rico, but she grew up in the country while he grew up in the city. She was all about surfing and hammocks and he was all about hip hop and lowriders. There was zero commonality.
Even within Hawaii you can have really different environments. If you grow up on the beach in Lahaina on Maui, your day-to-day experience is substantially different from someone who grew up on the streets of Honolulu on Oahu.
So someone who grew up on an asteroid in a mining colony is probably going to feel very differently than someone who grew up on a small moon orbiting Jupiter in a science enclave. The microgravity might be the same and you don't have a "real planet" under your feet, but other than that it's likely to be quite dissimilar.
Micah wrote: "R. wrote: "If the human body is adapted to living in space, how are they going to visit planets where normal 1 G gravity would make them invalids?"Answer: cybernetic bodies or power suits for whe..."
All of that is possible, but we are terrestrial beings and I think the urge to be able to enjoy the environments a planet can offer will remain strong in us. It is possible that a race of space adapted people may evolve from humans, but I think that there will still be a call for terrestrial humans to work in space. That will lead to technology that will make being space adapted unnecessary. After all, we explore the depths of the oceans today, but we do not do it by altering ourselves. We did it by developing technology that allows us to go deeper than we ever have before.
We've colonized every climate and geographic range there is despite being suited only for a specific, narrow range of conditions. There's no reason to think we won't adapt to space in the same way.Plus, except for the moon, everything that's part of deep space is REALLY far away. At a minimum anyone living there would be out there for years on end. I'll bet money there will be people who love it so much they'll never come back.
Trike wrote: "You're thinking too small, too inside the box.I thought that personal attacks were not allowed in this group.
I can't imagine being condemned to live the rest of my life in a city/the country/the suburbs/on an island/in the mountains."
This is a specious argument, but it does prove my point. People are not "condemned" to live in a city, country, suburbs, or an island by modification to their bodies. A city dweller can, if they like and have the means, relocate elsewhere. I was born in a city and now live in a suburb. I have spent time in the country and found different reasons to appreciate all three environments.
You could have on-demand cloning as John Varley does with his Eight Worlds series. Or multiple bodies the way Chalker does in Downtiming the Nightside, or a distributed brain like Anne Leckie's Ancillary books. Telepresence and android bodies are also options.
Of course, these ideas are innovative and might even be practical some day. On demand cloning is probably impractical strictly for the legal quandary it represents. Most of the other ideas lack any scientific theory that would give them credibility. Only using androids seems likely, but the androids would have to be independent unless we develop some form of quantum transmission to control them over long distances. If they are independent, then there is no need for them to be androids. It would be more likely that space robots would be designed to fit their task rather than to imitate humans. An automated space fleet does make a lot of sense. It just makes for rather dull fiction.
R. wrote: "Trike wrote: "You're thinking too small, too inside the box.I thought that personal attacks were not allowed in this group."
On the other hand, you have a giant box for what you consider a personal attack. Wow. That was in no way an attack.
Trike wrote: "R. wrote: "Trike wrote: "You're thinking too small, too inside the box.I thought that personal attacks were not allowed in this group."
On the other hand, you have a giant box for what you consi..."
That statement was a criticism of me not a response to my ideas. Isn't that the definition of a personal attack?
In my books Gravity is a must. Although I tend to play around with it as I don't accept a planet will ever have the exact same gravity or even air pressure as Earth.My latest book is based on a colony on a planet with gravity at 2% greater than Earth but one-quarter of the air pressure. Humans live inside a canopy.
Zero gravity effects not only our digestive systems but also our bones.
I firmly believe that Humans working in space for long periods will still want to visit Earth at least periodically. Why? Because very few people can endure living in an artificial, space-limited environment like a spaceship or space-based installation forever, breathing only recycled air and lacking contact with true nature. Just go watch the reactions of sailors coming off a warship after six months at sea. As for adapting to space conditions, I believe that there is no need for Humans to modify their bodies for space and thus become unfit to live on Earth, as technology can be used to render life in space relatively bearable. In large spaceships and space stations, artificial gravity can be replicated via rotating carroussels and centrifugal forces. On moons through the Solar Systems, periodic rest periods in such centrifuges (beds could all be mounted on rotating carroussels, for example) and regular exercise (like swimming in pools or tanks) could keep the human body fit for Earth visits or sojourns. And this could be done strictly with the technology we have today.
On the subject of space battles, I would disagree with the premise that combat between ships would occur at distances measured in many light minutes. I believe that combat at more than a few light seconds distances will be impractical, due to problems with sensors definition, response time, weapons effective ranges and ship evading maneuver capabilities. The two most plausible battle scenarios in the case of ships using rocket propulsion technology (thermonuclear or anti-matter rockets) would be either a frontal clash, with possibly one side lying in ambush and waiting for the enemy to close in to within weapons range, or a high speed pursuit, with mutual exchange of fire. Most fighting will probably occur near or within the gravity well of a planet or moon (which would normally be the prizes sought by the combattants), thus the speeds won't be that high anyway. As for combat at near light speed or hyperlight speed, the technology needed to attain such speeds would in turn probably permit many possibilities that we can't even envision right now.
On the subject of space battles, I would disagree with the premise that combat between ships would occur at distances measured in many light minutes. I believe that combat at more than a few light seconds distances will be impractical, due to problems with sensors definition, response time, weapons effective ranges and ship evading maneuver capabilities. The two most plausible battle scenarios in the case of ships using rocket propulsion technology (thermonuclear or anti-matter rockets) would be either a frontal clash, with possibly one side lying in ambush and waiting for the enemy to close in to within weapons range, or a high speed pursuit, with mutual exchange of fire. Most fighting will probably occur near or within the gravity well of a planet or moon (which would normally be the prizes sought by the combattants), thus the speeds won't be that high anyway. As for combat at near light speed or hyperlight speed, the technology needed to attain such speeds would in turn probably permit many possibilities that we can't even envision right now.
Steve wrote: " I don't accept a planet will ever have the exact same gravity or even air pressure as Earth."excellent point. 2% of earth's gravity? is that going to make a real difference? on mars, john carter was superman, but mars' gravity is about 1/3 of earth.
so, that's pretty interesting about the air pressure. basically, you're talking about a thinner atmosphere. in that case, would the o2 concentration be lower? not that it couldn't be the same as earth or higher to compensate for the lower atmosphere density.
i seem to recall a book or movie wherein the "aliens" had to have larger lungs b/c of a thinner atmosphere; however, that isn't necessarily true. their hemoglobin (i think that's what transfers o2 around) could be much more efficient.
this brings up the whole notion of exobiology. last year, an astrobiologist gave a talk at Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland,CA--too bad i missed that.
i found some pretty cool links:
"we are beginning to get some indication from Kepler
what fraction of stars have planets that are sort of like the Earth,
and that fraction is not one in a million, it is not 1 in 1,000, it is
not 1 in 100. It may be one in five." (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113...)
First Earth-Size Planet in 'Habitable Zone' 04.17.2014 (http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeple...)
R. wrote: "That statement was a criticism of me not a response to my ideas. Isn't that the definition of a personal attack? "It was a statement of fact.
If that bothered you that much, take a word of advice: don't venture onto the internet. Ever.
Alex G wrote: "Steve wrote: " I don't accept a planet will ever have the exact same gravity or even air pressure as Earth."excellent point. 2% of earth's gravity? is that going to make a real difference? on mar..."
There are many ways to deal with problems like this, as you inferred, the blood carrying chemical (in an alien, it may not necessarily be hemoglobin) could have a different efficiency level than what we have.
Greater/lesser pressure combined with lesser/greater oxygen levels in the atmosphere can deal with this issue. Just like our astronauts pre breathe pure oxygen before going performing EVA (spacewalk)so they have a higher oxygen concentration in their suits but the suits contain a lower atmospheric pressure than earth 'normal'.
R. wrote: "That statement was a criticism of me not a response to my ideas. Isn't that the definition of a personal attack?"To me it sounded like a criticism of the scope of your argument, not of your personal character.
So instead of "too small and inside the box" say "too near-future" instead.
I actually agree with you (that permanent life-long in-space habitation won't happen because of the health risks) as long as we're talking about space stations in our own solar system, or near-future colonies on the Moon...or until practical solutions are developed to counteract those health issues.
But that's all very near-future: a few centuries at the most, which is peanuts to the time scales we're talking. It sounds like you're restricting your ideas to our first manned forays out into the Sol system.
But even in the next hundred years or so, gravity is certainly not going to be a requirement, as you postulated, for successful commerce in space. We already keep some astronauts in space for a year or more. And, of course, all the asteroid mining projects being discussed and planned for--the first major commercial efforts likely to come true--are robotic missions.
So even in the near term your argument seemed too limited in scope.
Micah wrote: "We already keep some astronauts in space for a year or more.That is incorrect. The only people to have spent more than a year continuously in space are four Cosmonauts, and they spent their time on MIR. The current record for the ISS is 215.4 days.
And there are serious concerns about the health of those astronauts. It takes a few days or months for some of the health risks to dissipate, but others, like bone density loss, can take years. Scott Kelly is scheduled to spend a year on the ISS so that they can compare his condition with that of his twin brother on his return.
I do not see my argument as limited in scope. Man has consistently altered his environment to suit his needs either by changing the environment or by developing technology that adapts to that environment for him. I do not see any reason that would change.
If we were able to select the gravity for the situation, that would make working in space the best of both worlds. Some activities are easier in zero G. Others improve with gravity. (As I understand it, the instructions on how to operate a zero G toilet go on for pages.) One of the major concerns is what would happen if a person in zero G required an operation.
R. wrote: "Micah wrote: "We already keep some astronauts in space for a year or more.That is incorrect. The only people to have spent more than a year continuously in space are four Cosmonauts, and they sp..."
Given we are talking about possibly generations into the future, it is not impossible that we will adapt ourselves to low or no G rather than creating elaborate gravity simulations through genetic manipulation or advanced implants and medication.
It would take thousands of years for the human body to successfully adjust to zero gravity and low air pressure.The most likeliest advance would be the discovery of creating false gravity and an advanced propulsion system. Both are quite likely to happen.
Think about it. It was only sixty years? between the Wright brothers first flight and a jet exceeding the speed of sound.
Steve wrote: "It would take thousands of years for the human body to successfully adjust to zero gravity and low air pressure.The most likeliest advance would be the discovery of creating false gravity and an ..."
Thousands of years only if you assume that genetic engineering doesn't advance in the next 50 to 100 years. Or even Warhammer 40K style with biological implants.
Until then, spinning ships are pretty awesome.
I can see the logic behind spinning ships, but then I keep looking back at 19th-century engineering solutions to their perception of future problems. And then I look at how we resolved the problem. Therefore it could be said that in two hundred years time, the solutions could be completely different to what we see is logical today.
V.W. wrote: Given we are talking about possibly generations into the future, it is not impossible that we will adapt ourselves to low or no G rather than creating elaborate gravity simulations through genetic manipulation or advanced implants and medication."How many of us go into a profession selected for us at birth? What if a genetically altered person decided that working in space was not for him or her? This leaves implants and medication. How many people would take a job that required them to submit to an implant or to taking regular medication? Most of the people I knew at work complained about punching a time clock, and the time clock only felt like an implant. It still seems to me that developing a practical form of artificial gravity better satisfies Occham's razor.
R. wrote: "V.W. wrote: Given we are talking about possibly generations into the future, it is not impossible that we will adapt ourselves to low or no G rather than creating elaborate gravity simulations thro..."What makes you think the people would initially be volunteers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethic...
Also, culture is in a constant state of flux. Who knows what the next ten years will hold, let alone the next 100?People would have snorted in derision if you had claimed with a straight face in 1999 that by 2009 the US would have suffered a major terrorist attack destroying the World Trade Center, resulting in our attacking two completely unrelated countries at a cost of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, that the dot.com bubble would burst so severely that whole companies and billions of dollars would disappear almost overnight, that nearly everyone would have a cell phone, that the Gulf Coast would suffer two major hurricanes back to back that would keep New Orleans from recovering for more than a decade, that the fear of terrorism would result in the creation of a surveillance state larger than any before implemented with Soviet-type nomenclature, that we would have to take off our shoes to go through airport security (and find that normal), that the result of tax cuts and deregulation of banks, Wall Street and insurance companies would be instrumental in a massive crash of the global economy second only to the Great Depression that would claim as its victims some of the largest companies in America including General Motors to the point where the government would have to not only bail out banks and insurance companies but also become the major stakeholder in GM, which would give rise to the conservative astroturf Tea Party movement protesting government spending (which would later inspire the leftist grassroots Occupy movement), which would culminate in the election of America's first black President, not to mention an increasing call for gay marriage rights, universal health care and the increase of the minimum wage as class warfare reached a fever pitch... if you had claimed all of that was going to happen in a decade, people would have laughed at you.
You can do that for pretty much any ten-year period in history and see enormous cultural shifts. Sitting here in 2015, we likely have no idea what's in store for 2025.
I think we won't be driving our own cars in the largest cities, that they will be largely automatic except for special permitted usage like emergency vehicles, that we'll have routine stem cell treatments for a whole host of conditions from heart disease to balding, that there will be a nearly universal ban on animal testing, places like Sea World and circuses will no longer exist, fast food restaurants will largely disappear, China will have a colossal environmental catastrophe which will panic world markets and cause us to slow trade with them to a crawl in order to protect native species resulting in a boom in the "biological inspection" industry, gay marriage will be the law of the land while hate crimes increase.
But fashion? Who knows. Selecting the gender and eye color of your kids? Maybe. The end of live actors in blockbuster movies entirely? Quite possibly.
You start spinning this stuff out a hundred years and you don't know what you'll end up with. Internet in our heads. Everyone with perfect health. Clothing being optional because our bodies no longer affected by the cold or UV rays. Dogs and cats treated with advanced medical technology to extend their natural lifetimes to 40 or 50 years. Moonbases and Marsbases no longer even a news item; the hot new ticket is Pluto Base 1, the furthest we've ever lived away from Earth.
R. wrote: "How many of us go into a profession selected for us at birth? What if a genetically altered person decided that working in space was not for him or her?..."Again, you seem to be limiting the scope of your scenario to the near-future, where Earth is still the home base of 99.99999% of all humanity, where the number of people in space is only a small temporary subset of the population, and the only reason people go into space is to perform A SPECIFIC job.
Imagine a time, though, when the Earth simply cannot cope with our population, where we have to move large portions of our species into space or extraterrestrial environments to avoid total collapse Earth's ecosystem.
Genetic modification may become the only viable way to do that (assuming mass genocide is taken off the table).
Huge numbers of people, then, will be born in space or on Mars or Europa or wherever. They will grow up in communities out there. They will not be out there by choice in order to perform one lousy job that they could quit in a few years and return to Earth from. They may have to stay out there, like it or not.
No matter what the reason (Earth's collapse, corporations performing large scale exploitation of space resources, weirdo pioneers moving off Earth just because it's where the action/adventure is...etc.) once you can have long-term habitation, then you will have whole segments of society out there needing a large variety of jobs to be filled..
The odd thing to me is that you are skeptical about so many things that are already being looked into in various fields of science (genetic modification, implants, medications, etc.) and yet artificial gravity sounds more plausible to you. But we don't even understand gravity. And as you pointed out earlier, low-tech varieties of simulated gravity (like spinning systems) come with a lot of problems that make them impractical.
I use anti-gravity a lot in my writing because having to deal with the physics of low-gravity environments is really tedious and can totally bog down a story that isn't about all that. Imagine every SF book ever having to go through the whole "this is how zero gravity works and isn't it a pain in the sphincter?"
But as for real future thinking? I find it far more likely that gravity will remain a mystery/problem for a longer time, and people will grab what's available and use it.
And speaking of ecological collapse: http://www.gizmag.com/earth-sixth-mas..."Paul Ehrlich, a Professor of Population Studies in biology and senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, draws on fossil records of vertebrate species and an abundance of data from other sources, combining them to create a baseline extinction rate for periods when there was no mass extinction event underway. Predicated on this baseline, the researchers were able to estimate that the current rates of vertebrate extinction is up to 114 times greater than that of the baseline.
According to the Union for Conservation of Nature, at this point roughly 41 percent of amphibian species and 26 percent of mammal species are in serious danger of extinction. Alarmingly, extinction rates are now at their highest point since the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event some 66 million years ago."
Here's an interesting article from NPR on forgotten fads, underscoring how quickly things change.I also recently listened to a podcast on the superb 99% Invisible called the "Post-Billiards Age" where they mention Chicago alone used to have 830 pool halls. If you added up all the gas station, McDonald's and Starbucks, you get a number less than 600. Now there are fewer than 10 pool halls. (One would think they would be easy to count, being in single digits and all.) But the thing about the billiards craze is that it has led to the virtual extinction of elephants because tusk ivory was the perfect material for billiard balls, and it has also led to elephants evolving rapidly so that small-tusked elephants are the norm nowadays, because they were selected out by hunters in colossal numbers.
The billiards craze also was the driving factor behind the creation of plastics, and one of the first ones was celluloid. Which wasn't very good for pool balls but turned out to be really good for film, thus allowing for the massive proliferation and eventual dominance of movies.
So you never know what small thing might change the entire world, from what animals look like (or become extinct) to the way culture evolves.
Micah wrote: "* Detecting spaceships in open space wouldn't really be that difficult if you're talking levels of tech high enough to create viable combat spacecraft. There is really no way to stealth a spaceship's heat signature. Look it up, it's almost impossible. "Store the heat temporarily and only vent when you can afford to be detected.
Currently missles seem the most viable thing in the future...of course if you got some kind of hyperspace warping that's accurate and can be done anywhere why not just warp in a pile of explosives...or really anything right at the same spot as their signature and boom can't dodge that. Or heck maybe we will find some kind of field you can deploy that is unblockable and has a similar effect to an EMP, and the only way to stop the effect is if humans manually pilot whatever needs to be done, and they can only control so much so combat becomes all fighter/mech based with kinects/lasers/laser swords.
edit: Now I'm imagining a steampunk spaceship that's controlled entirely though gears and hydraulics.
Way ahead in the future, assuming we get into conflict with other beings, it could be the case that good ol' ballistics could penetrate light and electromagnetic defenses.
Steve wrote: "Way ahead in the future, assuming we get into conflict with other beings, it could be the case that good ol' ballistics could penetrate light and electromagnetic defenses."I imagine a powerful enough electromagnetic field could rip any material apart or turn any missile aside. The real strategy would then become a zerg rush where you attempt to overwhelm the defenses in order to slip something through what is de facto a force field. Hammer it until the ship runs out of energy to maintain the defenses or the ability to track incoming attacks. (Assuming force fields aren't binary, either on or off, and are, instead, reactionary to threats.)
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Leviathan Wakes (other topics)Leviathan Wakes (other topics)
The Reality Dysfunction (other topics)
Empire From the Ashes (other topics)
The Forever War (other topics)
Answer: cybernetic bodies or power suits for when they're on planet.
You may not consider that a lovely solution for yourself but you aren't everybody else. Plenty of people might go for that, especially if the bulk of their life is spent in space.
R. wrote: "People can live in space, but they are naturally going to want to visit planets for recreation, business, etc. Where are they going to retire when they are done working in space? I just do not see people condemning themselves to low gravity environments for life..."
Why? People have historically "condemned" themselves to living in inhospitable climates. Why live in the frozen arctic when you can live in the tropics? Why? Because that's where your people live. That's where you were born. That's what you've been raised to know.
Your assumptions about what people will or won't do are very terrestrial-centric. But Earth is not always going to be a viable environment for everybody. Once populations get too high, or the planet's climate changes too much for the worse, or the sun grows too old, living in space or the moon or Mars or wherever is going to be the only alternative option.
And once you learn to live like that, the old human form is no longer viable. In fact, long-term habitation in space may naturally cause human speciation. The fossil record shows that the most rapid evolutionary change happens when a virgin environment is suddenly populated. When fish moved onto land there was an explosion of evolution. Same thing is likely to happen as we colonize space.
I, however, believe that people won't want to wait long enough for natural evolutionary processes to take effect. We will change ourselves, as abhorrent as that might be to many people.
ADDENDUM: Let us not forget what Sun Ra said: "Space IS the place!"