Re: GZGL FH - Habitats in Space.

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > as i said - silicon wafers, ball bearings and dilithium crystals.
you will
> > need space stations to make these, but they strike me as highly
automated
> > processes, not requiring much in the way of habitat for support. of
> > course, i am not an expert on making dilithium crystals; perhaps it
is a
> > manual job?
> 
> Metals of higher purity, crystals of sizes you can't grow in a 
> gravity well, etc. etc. and you always need people to maintain them. 

well, there is some truth in this, but i would make two points. firstly,
a
lot of these things can really be done more cheaply on the surface with
the application of a little more technology. i can see advances in
differential neutron acoustics allowing high-purity refining on planet.
secondly, if we have artificial gravity, surely we can do zero-g on the 
planet? whether this is cheaper than orbit is not clear. i think there
might well be a big future for orbital industry, but i still think the
populations would live on the planet, which is what we were (originally)
discussing (check the subject line!).

> Plus its a great spot for university research facilities, which might 
> evolve into whole Campuses. I'd love a chance to go to a Uni in 
> orbit. 

hmmm. yes, there are some things that are better done in orbit,
astronomy
being the obvious one but some kinds of materials science and
high-energy 
physics fitting in too. however, i don't see that they would be likely
to
grow into campuses any more than antarctic research bases or the  
observatories at kitt peak or jodrell bank. campuses are parts of 
universities, and by definition those have humanities and arts faculties
-
i can see no particularly good reason for firing economists into orbit
(into deep space, yes, but not orbit). however, i certainly wouldn't
mind
a posting in an orbital research lab ...

> > > 2.  I might need to live in a system for strategic reasons having 
> > > nothing to do with resources. 
> > put a fleet anchorage or a scientific field station there.
maintaining a
> > real civlian population in a system where one is not needed is going
to be
> > far too expensive to justify unless the stratgic reasons are
*really*
> > important.
> I'm thinking you have an inhabitable but not very useful world 
> (Arrakis minus the spice). It may sit at a strategic point. Might 
> therefore act as training ground and chokepoint stopper. So put a big 
> marine and Naval base there - not so expensive due to breathable 
> atmosphere (maybe plants grow?).

absolutely; strategic systems need garrisoning, or at least a few ships
on
station. however, what you are proposing is settling the planet, which
is
fine by me, but what was suggested was that space habitats might be
used.
i don't see that having a civilian population is all that necessary; i
suppose it would make the garrison less dependent on outside resupply.

> > > 3. Some of the inner colonies may have been established with
weaker 
> > > stardrives which limited options so space stations may have been
the 
> > > only approach. 
> > good point. however, i find it a little hard to believe that people
would
> > keep living in (and maintaining) old space habitats when earthlike
worlds
> > became available.
> 
> Hmm. I assume class M (ST terms) planets are not that common. 
> Habitable ones, maybe somewhat. But nice, garden-like worlds with 
> abundant resources, abundant breathable air, water, and abundant 
> consumable plant life? Pretty unlikely (but I'm guessing).  

i doubt there will be consumable plant or animal life anywhere else in
the
universe - there are just too many alternative biochemistries for ours
ot
have evolved twice (and bear in mind how many things there are on earth
that we can't eat). i sort of assume that terraforming is commonplace -
anything from venus to mars is just about livable.

> > don't forget what i said about freeports: these are vital and very
> > profitable, so expect lots of space stations with habitat and
commercial
> > facilities hanging about in strategically vital systems at the hubs
of
> > trade networks. and with no flipping ambassadors hanging about
getting in
> > the way!
> 
> Oh don't count on that. You'll see the major powers making big 
> attempts to influence/control these and therefore there might well be 
> ambassadors.

quite possibly trade delegations, navy intelligence, police or customs
observers, central bank agents, consular emissaries (to look after their
citizens) etc, but i doubt a freeport will function as a permanent base 
for ambassadors.

Tom