Could Humanity Really Build 'Elysium'? 545
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Miriam Kramer writes at Space.com that in the new movie Elysium, Earth is beyond repair, and the rich and powerful have decided to leave it behind to live in a large, rotating space station stocked with mansions, grass, trees, water and gravity. 'The premise is totally believable to me. I spent 28 years working on NASA's International Space Station and retired last summer as the director of ISS at NASA Headquarters. When I took a look at the Elysium space station, I thought to myself, that's certainly achievable in this millennium,' says Mark Uhran, former director of the International Space Station Division in NASA's Office of Human Exploration and Operations. 'It's clear that the number-one challenge is chemical propulsion.' Nuclear propulsion could be a viable possibility eventually, but the idea isn't ready for prime time yet. 'We learned an incredible amount with [the International Space Station] and we demonstrated that we have the technology to assemble large structures in space.' The bottom line: 'If you threw everything you had at it, could you reach a space station of the scale of Elysium in 150 years?' says Uhran. 'That's a pretty tall order.'"
What about air? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd think the #1 issue would be air. Between leaks, meteor punctures, the necessarily less than 100% efficient airlocks (they can't get ALL the air out, so some puffs away when you open the outer door), and outgassing, you need a 'top-up' every so often. See, for instance, the book 'Fallen Angels'- the main characters are from an orbital station, on a 'scoop' mission to gather air from the upper atmosphere of Earth at the start of the book.
Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going for Slashvertisement at this point.
Two Posts about a movie that basically In Time [imdb.com] but in space is fishy to me.
I haven't seen this movie at all, But I can all but guarantee that the ending is going to be the Space station crashes onto earth and the rich survivors now have to live their lives just like everyone else.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think it's more characteristic of the default mode of human thinking. A kind of weak skepticism untempered by philosophical underpinnings. People don't naturally understand and embrace the scientific method, the historical method, or ethics, and it takes education to come to terms with those concepts.
This is a very stupid idea (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:4, Interesting)
You're thinking about it all wrong. All you need to do is invent a religion that makes space travel a sacred duty. For inspiration see the works of L. Ron Hubbard and the the second Riddick movie.
Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of the savings, and the security... and the general sense of self importance that could arise out being half a world away from the nearest criminal.
Plus, there would be a nice sense of irony in their newfound situation that would be lost on most.
Re:The premise is still borked (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you rebel when you have handguns and they have hellfire missiles?
Yes.
The people with the guns can still kill and destroy at will. They will strike at the vulnerable parts of the civilization. They will also be likely to give up their lives for the cause.
The people with the hellfire missiles, however, will be hamstrung by the sheer destructiveness of those weapons. A Hellfire missile is of no use if the target is in the very location you are striving to protect. Yes, you /could/ kill the insurgent, but the collateral damage would vastly outweigh the gains you would achieve with such a "victory".
Given the history of the last seventy years, it's surprising this is even a question anymore. Those super weapons are great for destroying (other) civilizations, but not so awesome for protecting or maintaining your own. For that you use psychology and propoganda; that way it doesn't even /occur/ to your own people to rebel. It's the old "bread and circuses", a maxim that's been known and in use for over 2000 years.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
i don't know about the Hospitallers but since you mentioned 1066 I do know that William I with his Normans used a stirrup, something the Saxons didn't have, requiring the Saxons to dismount before attacking, whereas the Normans could use cavalry charges. The Saxons only lasted as long as they did that day becuase they had a nice, up hill defensive position and using the shield wall tactic were able to withstand the Norman charges for a while.
I wasn't there; how do I know this? PEOPLE WRITE STUFF DOWN, Sperbels.
We can do anything (Score:5, Interesting)
Like intermodal, I'll go with "No", but add a bit more.
First the basic premise that we "wreck/destroy/damage" the earth to the point where rich folk want to get off is pretty far fetched. I agree with the concept of climate change and I feel that humans have a nasty habit of pooping in their own house, but the Earth is a pretty large house. Given the resources to build a space station the size of Elysium it would be less expensive to carve out an area of land on earth and make it more habitable. Building a dome(s) over large areas of land is more plausible then Elysium.
If the earth is so wrecked/damaged/destroyed (and I have not seen nor will I see this movie), how are all those people still living on earth. From the trailer's I see damaged buildings, but breathable atmosphere. I see over turned cars, but sunlight and the few quick shots from orbit I see clouds and clear areas so that means rain. If the planet is toxic then the population would eventually die. If not then the population would die off to a level that allows for survival, then growth, then ultimately revenge. How does Elysium get supplied? If from Earth then it would not be that difficult to shut down launch facilities (lots of people still live on Earth I presume) thus eventually requiring the Orbitors to need to negotiate with those on the planet. if those in orbit don't need Eath then why not just commit genocide for any group put under the whip will eventually rise up angry.
Who builds this thing? It is not small so construction would take a large amount of human resources and the rich folk would (1) have to pay them (2) make up a story about how everyone working on the place will get to stay (3) be so united that not one hint of deception would get out. If it did, I figure construction would quickly stop. Rich people may be good at massaging money, but I doubt they have the requisite skills to perform orbital construction or the other countless jobs it takes to build Elysium. Along with that idea, once built, who maintains the place. Rich folk? Hardly for they still need waste/garbage disposal. They need life support crews to ensure air and water keep flowing and they need cleaning crews for all those mansions and quaffed grounds. It is not hard to imagine that at some point the "lower class" on the station will not like what they see going on on Earth and do something to make a change. On Earth, control the resources is hard but doable, on a station is is much easier to commit sabotage and compromise delicate systems.
If the rich folk have that much money, power, and high tech capability to create Elysium, why wait for the crash of Earth, but sue their skills to repair, then take over Earth. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. By isolating themselves on Elysium they actually make themselves more vulnerable then by being spread out on earth, manipulating and using the population to their own ends (kind of like today). Even better, keep the masses fat and happy and you would either not have need for an escape station, or you'll get long lines of people wanting to build the station, but stay on Earth.
tl;dr The premise is quite unbelievable, I dare say it is not really science fiction, more like the current trend of Hollywood to create action adventure in space, so they throw in CGI and space to make it seem different from the large number of films that have underdeveloped plots, weak characters, and forgettable eye candy.
Could we build it? Sure, but I'd rather hold out for a Ring World.
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Interesting)
Humanity will build such a thing as and when such a thing becomes desirable to those with the money and power to make it happen.
In this movie, Earth becoming horrendous provides the impetus for the rich and powerful to push for the development. And when the rich and powerful want something, they will make it happen - especially in popular fiction. Nuclear launchers - no problem.
In addition, seeds are a lot lighter than trees, so all plants on the station would be grown in-situ. Assuming a 50 year build span, with the first plant-supporting-biomes being installed ten to twenty years into that build time, after 50 years there would be a lot of 30 year old trees.
Soil, that's an issue. That would have to be a combination of fertilizer,humus,natural soil bacteria, nemotodes, fungi, insects, etc, and space dirt - rock dust from asteroid mining, lunar regolith, etc.
I agree with the author that 2154 is probably a bit early for all that, given our current rate of space development, unless a big breakthrough is made in getting into space effectively, regularly, and cheaply in the next thirty years. 2254 I could understand more.
Self-replicating technology can make it faster (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when NASA was more ambitious and had better political support: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ [islandone.org]
"What follows is a portion of the final report of
a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press.
What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy."
As I said elsewhere:
http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/the-science-behind-elysium/ [slashdot.org]
"The cheapest way forward may be to create an open source plan for an automated seed that could be sent to an asteroid where it would begin to grow into a space habitat. Then the habitat could duplicate itself by making more seeds. The habitats could create transport spacecraft to land on Earth and solar space satellites to power them on the ground for launching back into space with people on board. So, all it takes is crowd-sourcing and the cost of the first seed and the first launch. Well, of course the first might fail, but by the tenth try it might work. So, it might be doable for only a few billion dollars in real money for materials and the first launches. Testing could be mostly done via simulation."
Related projects I've participated in:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html [pdfernhout.net]
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/ [kurtz-fernhout.com]
http://openvirgle.net/ [openvirgle.net]
It may be easier to figure out how humans can live in zero-G by bio-engineering though, compared to spinning big heavy things.
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Asgard [wikia.com]
I also suggest living in liquid with probably "liquid breathing" as an option to prevent muscle wasting and bone loss (since whales do OK by resistance from water):
http://www.oscomak.net/wiki/Liquid_breathing_to_resist_bone_loss [oscomak.net]
Re:The real question (Score:3, Interesting)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+mobility [lmgtfy.com]
If you're born poor in the US, your chances of making it to the middle class are lower than those of a poor person in quite a few other industrialized countries. It's shameful is what it is.
There's more to life than headlines (Score:4, Interesting)
Physics and sociology would be the major factors with such a space outpost. I think the physics say 'yes' while social factors say 'definite Maybe'.
The wealthy habitually promote the idea of the Earth being endlessly exploitable without fear of enviromental repercussions. They even tell us that pollution = good. So...... how do such people learn to live in a space vessel where limits are glaringly obvious and all waste must be dealt with or else risk their environment quickly becoming nonviable?
Their exploitation mindset may set them up to fail at life in space. Or, they may grow more ecologically conscious before their separatist project becomes set in stone. Or they might internalize some combination of values that allow them to become complete Space Nazis.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)