Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Wednesday October 16 2024, @01:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-a-kessler-syndrome-is-not-triggered-first dept.

Charlie Stross, a science fiction writer based in Scotland, has written a post about different possible approaches to space colonization. He includes a discussion of several different models.

While the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is evidently invalid, a weaker version—that language influences thought—is much harder to argue against. When we talk about a spaceship, a portmanteau word derived from "[outer] space" and "ship", we bring along certain unstated assumptions about shipping that are at odds with the physical parameters of a human-friendly life support environment for traversing interplanetary distances. Ships, in the vernacular, have captains and a crew who obey the captain via a chain of command, they carry cargo or passengers, they travel between ports or to a well-defined destination, they may have a mission whether it be scientific research or military. And of these aspects, only the scientific research angle is remotely applicable to any actually existing interplanetary vehicle, be it a robot probe like Psyche or one of the Apollo program flights.

(Pedant's footnote: while the Apollo crews had a nominal commander, actual direction came from Mission Control back on Earth and the astronauts operated as a team, along lines very similar to those later formalized as Crew Resource Management in commercial aviation.)

Anyway, a point I've already chewed over on this blog is that a spaceship is not like a sea-going vessel, can't be operated like a sea-going vessel, and the word "ship" in its name feeds into various cognitive biases that may be actively harmful to understanding what it is.

Which leads me to the similar term "space colony": the word colony drags in all sorts of historical baggage, and indeed invokes several models of how an off-Earth outpost might operate, all of which invoke very dangerous cognitive biases!

There are few more models which he missed.

Previously:
(2022) Moon Life 2030
(2022) Why Werner Herzog Thinks Human Space Colonization "Will Inevitably Fail"
(2020) Elon Musk Will Run Into Trouble Setting Up a Martian Government, Lawyers Say
(2018) Who Owns The Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers
(2017) Stephen Hawking Urges Nations to Pursue Lunar Base and Mars Landing
(2015) NASA Working on 3D Printers to Print Objects Using Martian Regolith


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 17 2024, @11:41AM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday October 17 2024, @11:41AM (#1377358)

    Yes, they are engineering problems. And each one, except the distance, is solvable on its own.

    The problem is the margin for error is much smaller. If you take all these problems, and imagine a well-engineered solution to them somehow crammed onto a ship and lifted into space along with your intrepid colonists, so far so good, right?

    Now hit those well-engineered solutions with a few rocks so they don't work, which is a real risk in space. And your available materials to rig a solution to the problems you just got handed are more rocks if you're lucky, and the other parts of your ship. You have about 20 hours before you run out of breathable air, and you will get progressively stupider and less able to do things as that time passes. "Well, carry a spare." Fine, but that's doubled the cost of launching your craft, and the moment this problem repeats itself your spare is gone too.

    Contrast that with being in the middle of the Pacific: You won't run out of breathable air, you can catch water if it rains, you can fish for food, and if you can make it to an island you are likely to be able to find materials that will be useful in fixing your boat. And there's also a very distinct possibility you'll find other people who might be willing and able to help you out, too. It's an environment where you have a lot more flexibility and ability to adapt to trouble.

    Terrestrial colonization worked because there was stuff humans needed and could use where they were going. Space colonization for the most part does not have that.

    --
    "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 17 2024, @04:11PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 17 2024, @04:11PM (#1377401) Journal
    In other words, it's still a tech problem not a organizational/governance problem. And yes, "carry a spare" is what works here.

    Terrestrial colonization worked because there was stuff humans needed and could use where they were going. Space colonization for the most part does not have that.

    That still will be the case in space - the stuff humans need will be at those destinations. It's just a harder problem. That's all.