Talk:Space settlement

message: This seems to me to be misnamed.  It should be called 'Orbital Space Colonies' or 'Orbital Space Habitats' or something like that.  Also, I don't understand why the writing is suspect.  Is all pretty well established stuff.  See http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Design.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlGlobus (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article misnamed

message: i have a question-for anyone who has played "zone of the enders"(the first one)-
Would Antilla be an O'Neill cylinder?
seeing as there is a section there about "O'Neill cylinders in popular culture,i thought it was prudent to check. (yes i know i should have put that there but i havent because this is a more central page with all the links on) Pikajedi3 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zone of the Enders: Antilla

message: What does # 9 under Problems mean? Can someone clear this statement up?    
Noclevername 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand it either.  I've tagged it with a request for a citation, because hopefully one would clarify the intended meaning.  If we don't get one soon, I suggest removing it. JulesH 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear

message: Should Larry Niven's concept of hollowing, heating and "inflating" iron asteroids to make large space habitats be included, or is it too speculative at present? --- Noclevername 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are non-fictional sources, I think it should be included. JulesH 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. In the nonfiction article "Bigger than Worlds", Niven states that he got the design from the book Islands in Space by Dandridge M. Cole and Donald W. Cox. ---Amazon.com: found it, Islands in Space;: The Challenge of the Planetoids (the ;: appears to be part of the title), 1964, "unknown binding" . I'll add the description but I have had a terrible time trying to use footnotes (newbie, y'know). Any help in doing so would be appreciated.   Noclevername 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference to Niven's article? JulesH 08:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bigger Than Worlds", section title: "Inside-Outside", pp. 517-518, Playgrounds of the Mind, Larry Niven, Tor Science Fiction, 1991 Noclevername 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bubbleworld" asteroids

message: As it is, the article claims that the radiation level one would be exposed to in a space habitat is "well above" what is considered a dangerous level. However, in The High Frontier, it says that, discounting heavy primaries and solar flares, the average amount of radiation one would be exposed to in a space habitat with an atmosphere is 10 rads. While above anything here on Earth this is still below the level at which signifigant radiation poisoning is very likely (20 rads). If no-one can give a source to the current statement soon, then I propose changing it. Lehi (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on... 10 rads = 100 milligray.  To convert to sieverts as used in the article we need to know the type of radiation; we'll assume low-energy neutron radiation with a Q of 5, and we'll assume exposure to the whole of a person's body so N=1.  This suggests exposure is 500 mSv, way higher than the values in the article.  The 20 rads safe level you suggest converts to 1 Sv, which is enough radiation to induce immediate physical effects.  The current statement is talking about repeated prolonged exposure, for which safe limits are substantially lower than individual doses. JulesH (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiation

message: 5.   Easier trade with Earth than planetary colonies, as colonies orbiting Earth will not have a gravity well to overcome to export to Earth, and a smaller gravity well to overcome to import from Earth.
</blockquote>
Is it saying that trade would be easier directly between individual colonies and the Earth than trade between different space colonies; i.e. that colony-to-Earth trade would be easier than colony-to-colony trade? And if so, how is this an advantage and for whom, the colonies, the Earth, both? (it would seem to me that eventually, colony-to-colony trade would be easier than colony-to-Earth trade, and that this would be more preferred in furthering the goals of independence and self-sufficiency beyond Earth). This really needs to be clarified (rewritten), as I cannot tell what the sentence is trying to say (or am I just "not getting it"?)--Shanoman (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It almost needn't be mentioned, but that entire section is poorly referenced, and source citations are required for assertions like the one you quoted.  That said, take a look at Delta_v#Delta-vs_around_the_Solar_System for a good graphic showing what the quoted text is probably trying to assert. (sdsds - talk) 04:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages

message: Most of the revisions by 218.164122.65 seem helpful but I have doubts about adding "most easily" to make "Nitrogen is most easily available from the Earth."  My guess is that Space habitats are at least thirty years in the future, probably more.  Considering the difficulty of lifting anything from Earth's gravity well, it could well be cheaper thirty years hence to distill nitrogen from Mars' atmosphere which contains about three percent Nitrogen.  The added expense in extracting the Nitrogen might be made up in the reduced expense of transporting it to space habitats even in cis lunar space.  Single stage to orbit reusable shuttles that have proved such a difficult challenge on Earth as to seem impossible are well within current design capabilities if operated from Mars.  These could be fueled from locally available materials.  If the article is to indicate that nitrogen from Mars would not be cheaper than nitrogen from Earth for Space habitats, there should be a reliable reference to state that.--Fartherred (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various revisions by 218.164.122.65 

message: I have read the edits identified by CardinalDan as vandalism in his edit at 06:36:40 hours on the 27th of March.  These edits were not vandalism.  Wikipedia can use help in its struggles against vandalism, but here it seems that CardinalDan was somewhat trigger-happy, careless or both.  
Here is a quote from the Wikipedia's policy on vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.  Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."  
I see no evidence on CardinalDan's user page that he is even qualified to edit the Space habitat article.  Certainly the mere fact that an edit came from an IP address does not make it vandalism.--Fartherred (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has posted any disagreement with my suggestion that CardinalDan was mistaken in reverting certain edits, I will restore these edits.  It may be that these edits should be removed, but please do not call them vandalism. Fartherred (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim of vandalism 

message: User:67.193.56.126 Removed a citation needed tag from the "heat rejection" paragraph.  The edit summary indicates "it seems like a very basic fact."  I would summarize the whole heat rejection paragraph as: "Habitats need a radiator to eliminate heat from absorbed sunlight."  The rest is a bunch of false statements, nonsense, vague ideas from no source and/or original research.  (As Wikipedia defines it, original research is any sort of dubious statement not attributed to some reliable source.)  As to the "thermos bottle" referred to in the "Heat rejection" section, it is usually understood as a double walled bottle with a vacuum between the two walls to thermally insulate the contents.  In that case a space habitat is as much like a thermos bottle as it is like a beer bottle.  The comparison is worthless.  Simply, a space habitat is in a vacuum and so lacks a way to lose heat by convection to air or water.  Radiation is all that is left, and it is a definite problem.  Certainly handling this problem might involve distributing coolants, but the section would have to direct me to some specific plan before I could judge it practical or not.  In particular there needs to be a source mentioned so that I can see some real person actually made some definite proposal.  I know there are numerous definite proposals of varying practicality and level of detail, but the Heat rejection section in this article is worthless.--Fartherred (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heated rejection 

message: I removed the link to Earth because everyone knows what Earth is and if they want a 126 kilobyte article giving additional details on Earth, they will not search by way of a Space habitat article. --Fartherred (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous link 

message: I think I have mainly repaired the unintentional damage done by User:67.185.205.32's edits, and hope I have retained some of the value.  There is still that huge lack of references to work on and a few other minor points.  --Fartherred (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How embarrassing.  I got the year wrong on a couple of  tags that I put into the article.  It is a good thing SmackBot is on the ball and caught it.  There is still the work of finding the references ahead of me.  It is just a question of finding the time.  --Fartherred (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage Repaired 

message: A bolo is a machete.  See bolas.  What metaphor is intended? —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems obvious to me bola was intended.  I could change it, but the honor is yours if you want it.  I need to make a trip to a suitable library and do some research on things like this.  Just rummaging through the internet is insufficient.  --Fartherred (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bolo or bola? 

message: If true, the statement that some L5 members are active in the Extropian Institute has nothing to do with space habitats.  --Fartherred (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed statements about the Extropian Institute, the National Space Society, the Moon Society and the Mars Society that did not refer to space habitats.  --Fartherred (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Its name was Extropy Institute anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extropian Institute advertising does not belong here 

message: Please  be sure that all additions to the Space habitat article are are  verifiable.  Any new items added to the article should have  inline citations for each claim made. 
I have removed a good deal of the unsourced material that had been  previously tagged  for at least a couple of  months with no sources added.  There is yet more of this to remove.  If you have a source, please feel free to add the removed material back in, along with the citation.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an estimate that mankind has launched under 30,000 tons into orbit, whereas a Bernal Sphere has a low mass estimate of 3.5 million tons. It is easy to calculate as OR, but I haven't found a reference. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and sources are needed 

message: User: 74.194.199.65 objects to a space habitat being the passenger compartment of a star ship.  
 
This article is not so much concerned with whether it is possible to colonize distant stars using space habitats as what reliable sources write about it.  In Space colonization#Outside the Solar System there is a quote of Stephen Hawking about going to another star to find an Earthlike planet to establish colonies.  Generation ship has the statement "...self-sustaining space habitats would be needed."  I realize I have not provided a reference, but this is such a commonly repeated theme that I should not have much trouble.  Wait a bit.  - Fartherred (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: phrase it to make clear the essentials of a hab underlie the essentials of a self-sustaining deep-space vessel.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Space habitats moving to other stars

message: Yes and no. The only mention of the concept that I remember in his fiction is "Confinement Asteroid", where pregnant Belters live (because babies don't develop properly in microgravity). The existence of such a habitat for special use implies that they're not common. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niven's bubbleworld(s) 

message: I do not know if mention in a science fiction novel is sufficient to qualify the terrarium idea for inclusion in the Space habitat article.  I think not.  While this is being considered I will remove the phrase "relativistic speeds" from the section because it is common knowledge that nothing traveling at relativistic speeds follows regular routes through the solar system.  - Fartherred (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrarium as space habitat

message: It seems to me that the Template:By whom was correctly used to tag an unsourced, unattributed opinion.  The template was removed without explanation so I restored it, pending discussion.  - Fartherred (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of <nowiki>[[Template:By whom]]</nowiki> 

message: It seemed odd to have a first-level section saying what the article is not about, so I reorganized the lede a bit.  Let the edit wars begin. —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I suggest that the sentence about the Elysium movie belongs in the Fiction section rather than History. In fact, there have recently been a great flurry of movies featuring low-to-medium earth orbit space stations which seem to varying degrees to constitute space habitats (not to mention all the video game uses, which seemingly an entire generation of young non-readers regard as the origin of the entire concept), so the Fiction section has lots of potential entries which could be added; but I hardly think any of this qualifies as history. If the very first notions appeared in fiction, over a century ago, then sure that is history, but I don't think any fictional references in the last 40 years (or 60?) qualify for the history section, which ought to be reserved for legitimate engineering innovations in recent times. 173.180.150.33 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. IMO, any fictional treatment beyond the first conceptual use in fiction, which introduced the idea, isn't history.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction vs History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Space habitat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114035834/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050221/homesteading-a.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050221/homesteading-a.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It has been discussed above in 2010 that the article-term "Space habitat" is misleading.
While I agree its not to be understood as space station, I do see the need to move this article to "Space settlement" and use this article for structures like the Habitation Module.
Alternatively I could set up an article called "Space habitat (facility)" and kind of make this article "Space habitat (settlement)"? Nsae Comp (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Space settlement" 

message: As discussed multiple times above, the article is poorly named. The body of the article seems to be focused on a structure that is untethered in space with little-to-no gravity, not attached to a celestial body (such as a planet, moon, asteroid, etc), but this does not fit into the more widely accepted definition of "space habitat", which does not have this restriction. For example:
- The IAF (International Astronautical Federation)'s Space Habitats Committee says it aims to discuss "the issues and stakes raised by future space habitats (including settlements on celestial bodies and orbital infrastructures)". 
- Room.eu.com has an article on "space habitats", which also assumes that they can be attached to a celestial body https://room.eu.com/article/the-multidisciplinary-world-of-space-habitation-design
Its hard to find references to back this article up when the article itself is based on a definition that does not seem to be accepted by other parties. Even the article itself is aware of the confusion here, saying "A space habitat, or more precisely a space settlement", and then later: "The term space habitat sometimes includes more broadly habitats built on or in a body other than Earth—such as the Moon, Mars or an asteroid. This article concentrates on self-contained structures envisaged for micro-g environments."
As suggested above, I think this article should be renamed to "Orbital Space Habitats", "Orbital Cities", "Deep Space Human Habitation" or something similar in order to match the contents and focus of article. Bugghost (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be moved/renamed