Slashdot Mirror


Could Humanity Really Build 'Elysium'?

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.'"

9 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. Betteridge's law of headlines by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm invoking Betteridge's law of headlines and saying "no."

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Betteridge's law of headlines by hattig · · 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.

    2. Re:Betteridge's law of headlines by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's simply postulating that religion didn't *stop* us from advancing. And that's not a postulate, it appears to be demonstratively true, given our computers, smartphones, medical tech and just science in general. We have had religion for some significant portion of our advance through civilization and all the way through our scientific advancements. And we're using the technology that religion did not stop to complain about religion stopping technology.

      Now you could argue that it slowed us down. But you could also argue that since most universities started as schools of theology in the West, and that at many points religion actually encouraged scholarly and literate discussion about topics, that it may well end up being a wash in the end.

      Point being, if you want to blame religion as a general cause of all that is evil, and suggest that deleting it would delete many problems, you are in no way able to do so by simply pointing at history. The world may not be a great place, but it's the best place it has ever been, and it did that even with a bunch of priests holding the occasional Inquisition or the occasional Crusade or Jihad.

  2. 150 years is a long time by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look back at how things have changed since 1863 and you can't begin to comprehend where we could be in even 100 more years.

    1. Re:150 years is a long time by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Totally fascinating insight, we also don't know if the Hospitallers used M-16s in 1066 because we weren't alive back then. Or you know, we have this study called history that tells us things about the past without us having been personally present.

  3. Movie ad's disguised as science news? by malakai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is this movie being promoted through tons of tech sites/blogs?

  4. Re:The real question by Blaskowicz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The truth is the US is a country with low upwards mobility, and is totally in denial about it. When you adjust wages for inflation and stop describing healthcare as "benefits" maybe the bottom hundred million Americans will be in a better shape to "succeed".

  5. Fabulous Idea by some+old+guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    1.Build a huge, opulent space city, and populate it with the obscenely rich and the world's political leaders.
    2 Blow it up.
    3.Start over.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  6. Self-replicating technology can make it faster by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back when NASA was more ambitious and had better political support: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
    "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/
    "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
    http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
    http://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

    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

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.