Practical for a civilian to build a space suit?

Ryan_m_b

Key point: Space is big, really really big.

If the cities aren't mostly complete by the time the atmosphere has frozen then they're all dead anyway. The way I see it long before the Earth leaves the solar system there will be time to deploy these stations en mass. Bear in mind how huge the solar system is, it's taken the Voyager probes decades to get to the edge and given the technology we're talking about having the precision to beam said energy to Earth doesn't seem like too much of a deal.

sshai45

Yes, but I was thinking they'd need some time to develop the technology needed to launch with the VERY limited resources they'd now have, if they could ever do so. The space program we have now depends on having a large economy with free resources, no? (Note that the countries with big space programs also have big economies.)

CCWilson

Hard to pin down. One guy - a physics professor with an interest in astrophysics - said he thought it would be cool down quickly and he could calculate it but declined to do so. Another man said he thought it would be a slow process. So I'm still collecting data as best I can.

Ryan_m_b

Why are the resources very limited? They have a whole planet still. Again thinking of scale: we're proposing a society that has the capability to build, in short order, entire underground cities for millions of people that are technologically advanced enough to build and maintain closed ecosystems. Their industrial capacity will be huge, far greater than today.

So we've got a civilisation of millions with huge industrial capacity and a lot of experience and tools for digging. Doesn't sound like it would be too hard to mine the resources under the surface and build thousands of rockets.

sshai45

Yes, they would have the whole planet, but it'd be much more difficult to access than it is now. And didn't this guy mention in one of these threads that this was NOT supposed to be human civilization hundreds of years from now, but close to *today*? Or has he changed his mind on that?

Ryan_m_b

He wants it to be near but if you look back through the thread you'll see some of the things that we've pointed out that this near future society is going to need: the technology to build and maintain sustainable closed ecosystems and industries to support a well organised society of millions. On top of that it all has to be built underground in a matter of years. Whatever this society looks like it's not going to be lacking in industrial power or technology (even if it is utilitarian with the only non-personal aesthetic artefacts/activities being what sociologists and psychologists think is necessary).

CCWilson

One of the best tools for visualizing what a passing black hole would do was provided by DrStupid on another section of our PhysicsForum. It's initially set to show an object of one stellar mass throwing the Earth out of its orbit. If you click on "Stop simulation", you can change parameters to see what an object of different mass and different speed and position would do. I have no idea how accurate it is but it was greatly illuminating for me.

Thanks for that suggestion. I did find Minla's Flowers in a science fiction anthology and ordered it from Amazon. Should be here in a few days.

Ryan_m_b

No worries was the anthology Zima Blue?

CCWilson

No, the book is called "The New Space Opera". There were several that included that short story.

Ryan_m_b

Cool, I've not got it so I might have to make an amazon purchase at some point too lol.

sshai45

So he wants it to be near today, yet then how can it simultaneously have an industrial capacity "far" greater than today? That suggests a time centuries from now.

But I'd be curious about this: can one expect that with the population cut to maybe a thousandth of its original size, to still retain industrial capacity comparable to the entire U.S. of today, or whatever would be required for a big space program way bigger than the one of now?

Ryan_m_b

Exactly, this is why I've pointed out that the time frame is not workable. These cities are going to need three major things:

1) A sustainable closed ecosystem. Easier said than done as ecosystems are incredibly complex and we don't have much of a clue how to design one. We could try with artificial but that would require us knowing enough about ecosystems (and our place in them) to not only identify what is needed but somehow replicate it.

2) A model of social organisation that takes into account the optimum number and characteristics of skilled and skilled workers (see the other thread in this subforum about minimum populations) and puts them to work efficiently as well as taking care of social needs. The latter is as important as the former; societal failure modes are a whole lot more serious when everything is so enclosed and so fragile.

3) A technology and industrial base to support all this. Essentially these cities need to have a factory for everything plus redundancy. Think of the distributed industries on Earth now (take any modern technology near you and think of the huge distances and logistical chains that led to it being yours: from mining to refining to manufacture all via global transport and communication) and realise that they all have to be redesigned to fit "under one roof".

Lastly the reason it has to be so high tech is that pulling off an industrial feat of that size will require it on top of the technological know how it's going to need to keep the biosphere and extended phenotype going.
A thousand doesn't seem to likely. Remember that the US is not self sufficient (that doesn't mean it couldn't be bar mining outposts but it would take a heck of a redesign and wouldn't be as efficient). If the US was 1000 times smaller in population what would give it about 300,000 people which IIRC is 100,000 less than NASA employed during the Apollo program.

CCWilson

sshai45, I never said that the industrial or technological capabilities would be greater than they are today. In fact, they would certainly be less, because of the shortage of materials locally and no outside suppliers of intermediate parts. On the other hand, they wouldn't go back to the stone age, either. They would try to maintain as much technology as possible. They would store raw materials and components. Each city would have a section for scientific and engineering research and a manufacturing complex and they would do what they could. In the long run they might be able to develop the ability to roam the surface and harvest raw materials and other supplies and make scientific advances, but in the beginning they would be in survival mode, with the production of sufficient food for everyone the principal concern.

sshai45

Thanks. But one doesn't want it too advanced, either, lest there be the possibility of interstellar flight. Yet an industrial capacity "far" larger than ours suggests a civilization "far" more advanced.

Hmm. However, I still wonder about this. The thing is, in these cities, just about everyone is going to be needed just to keep things going, for survival. Which doesn't leave many for doing something like a huge space program way, way bigger than the Apollo program.

sshai45

Yes, however ryan_m_b suggested they'd *need* industrial capacity way greater than today's.

CCWilson

By the way, here's DrStupid's gravity simulator. Fun to play with. http://www.drstupid.de/Newton.html?8...0,0,0,o-Object

Ryan_m_b

It's not just a question of keeping as much technology as possible, they will need more advanced technology than we have! You are proposing that they construct things that we cannot construct today in an unbelievably short time span. It's going to require a lot of breakthroughs to get that done.

Also I have a problem with this idea that they will be in "survival mode". If you're building a self contained ecology for millions of people it's either going to work or it's not, there is no middle ground. That's not to say it isn't possible to have shortfalls but they have to maintain a biosphere. It has to be there with a carrying capacity equal or greater than their population number or they're dead.

The primary concern IMO isn't technological once the cities are built but psychological and social. How many people are going to have severe psychological trauma from loosing loved ones, their homes and the Earth in general? The medical authorities will constantly have to battle a population with widespread psychological needs which will be difficult as pretty much all of them will be suffering as well.
Not exactly. They will have technology more advanced than us but the main boon is from:

1) Having constructed concentrated industrial infrastructure capable of producing nearly anything en mass (this is to replace the globally distributed industries we have today)

2) The socioeconomic models that allowed these cities to be constructed in the first place. Think of the systems that would have to be invented and put into place to figure out what resources need to go where from across the world to invent and build these cities. With that experience under their belt this society will have far more efficient systems for megaprojects.

These cities are going to be huge. They're going to hold millions of people who are constantly organised into the most efficient arrangements to fulfil policy. They're going to have vast factories that can be put towards mass producing almost anything (they'll need that to build and maintain the cities). They're going to be very green, every available space will be covered with plants, animals, fungi, vats of microorganisms etc. They are going to be very monitored, every square metre is going to have to be monitored for air pressure/quality/temperature, all the organisms are going to have to be monitored for population levels and health with every interaction noted to model the health of the biosphere in general (with automatic and manual adjustments as required to keep it stable/human carrying). Essentially the economy of these cities will match a modern day developed nation. The production of rockets, solar panels, masers etc isn't too much of a drain compared to this.

However as I don't want to seem like all I bring is negative feedback I can envision that some of these cities might have to work flat out (i.e. nearly all their economy) to maintain their city. It could seem like they are constantly fighting a loosing battle. Though I still find this a little unbelievable (given the scenario it really does seem either make or break) this whole scenario is relying on hefty amounts of suspension of disbelief.