Bubbles_glow

≡ The Advantages of Space ≡

 
Corner_fold
  • Somewhere Else on the Internet
  • You Might Be Interested to Know
  • On the Other Hand
  • Illustration
Space_catalog
The Advantages of Space
 
Flowchart_grey_24

The Advantages of Space

Dr. Freeman Dyson
Department of Physics
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey 08540


Dear Dr. Dyson,

About a week ago I read Kenneth Brower's biography of you and your son and found myself highly interested in your ideas. I doubt that Dyson Spheres will be constructed in my lifetime by creatures in this biosphere, but perhaps some of us could set up something on asteroids or comets in a couple of decades . . .

As I see it, there are currently three possible environments for settlement: the sea, Antarctica, and Space, in ascending order of preference. Building ocean settlements strikes me as risky because we would probably be close enough to land to be controlled by various overwater interests. We're still at the bottom of a gravity well, down which fall canisters of radioactive wastes, industrial byproducts and the effluvium of toilets. It seems unfortunate to have to trust in other people to keep our environment uncontaminated what that trust has been so far without ground (dry or otherwise). Antarctica seems an order of magnitude better. It's remote; we could get out of sight of military bases pretty quickly and settle down with penguins or springtails. We certainly wouldn't have a gravity well problem on one of the 16,000 foot mountains. Antarctica would be a perfect place to set up a space launch site without strings. (And if we can fuel up with ice . . .) There's even air around to play with; it would be a good jumping-off place. On the other hand, if we didn't jump off within a century or so we'd probably be jumped on by nations looking for new material to exploit. Antarctica would also be rather dull compared to space. I won't be so condescending as to tell you what I think the advantages of space are; you've probably thought of it more than I have.

So . . .

Are we working on another version of Orion? Do you have any new plans? (Brower sort of left all that hanging.) What about finances, or the bone-calcium problem? Have you planned out any directions for the society up there, or would you leave it to evolve by itself?

You see, Dr. Dyson, I'd really like to come along. And I have a couple of friends who might be interested. None of us are brilliant physics or engineering minds (I'm eighteen, puttering with differential equations and may stop there as far as math is concerned), but I wouldn't say we're worthless either. What sort of preparation would you suggest; how can we help make the whole thing happen?


Springtail Penguins Freeman_dyson Orion_blastoff2 Dysnsphr_square Neemo9_aquarius
 

The Problem With Bones
by Ken Jenks

Human bones slowly lose calcium (and other minerals) in space. This isn’t very strange—human bones lose calcium all the time. But on Earth, most of the time, they build up calcium just as fast as they lose it. This part of homeostasis is called remodelling.

We don’t know for sure why bones lose minerals in space, but it seems significant that not all bones lose bone mineral density (BMD) at the same rate. For example, the bones in the upper body don’t seem to lose minerals at all, while the weight-bearing bones in the legs and lower back lose can lose a large percentage of their bone mineral content over several months in space (up to 20% loss has been observed in some bones of some space travelers).

Bone mineral loss in space travelers happens slowly. On short duration Space Shuttle missions, not enough bone mineral is lost to significantly increase the observed risk of bone fractures, and bone mineral content returns to normal over a period of several months after space flight.