[ExI] Monkeys in Space (Was: Re: ET Emergence (Was Re: Uploads as a group of AI agents))

[Keith Henson]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 2:34 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> On 29/03/2026 23:03, Keith Henson wrote:
> > Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 5:19 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
> > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> >> *I was reading recently that we need at least 0.85g (I think, I can't find the reference just now, but it was depressingly high, certainly > 0.6g) to prevent bone density problems, so it seems that between radiation and this, not to mention our resource needs, there's no realistic prospect of (biological) humans ever 'colonising space'. Even Mars has less gravity than we need to stay healthy.
> >
> > We have known rotating space colonies were possible for more than 50
> > years.  They provide one g and radiation shielding.
>
>
> Yes, I think that habitats in orbit make more sense than colonies on planets. That would certainly solve the gravity problem, but it still leaves radiation shielding (there are ways to generate artificial magnetospheres, but you still need to replicate the effect of a couple of hundred miles of atmosphere,

We don't have a couple of hundred miles of atmosphere.  It thins out
to 50% at 3 miles.  At sea level, it's 14 psi.

> for shielding against high-energy neutral particles),

Other than neutrinos, which are only a problem if you are next to a
supernova, there are no such things.  A high-energy particle is
ionized in a fraction of a millimeter when it hits something solid.

> which means a lot of extra mass,

Normally, some 6 feet of dirt will deal with radiation.  Two meters of
polyethylene will reduce the cosmic radiation to ground level.

> and the simple fact that we need a hell of a lot of oxygen, water, and food, as well as all the myriad other requirements of biological organisms,

It was worked out long ago.  See the early SMF conference papers.  It
is not a big fraction of an O'Neil cylinder.

> which contrasts very starkly with the probable requirements of uploads.

I have worked on this problem in connection with the Tabby's star
analysis.  Have you worked out what it would take to support an
upload?  It is not trivial.  The heat radiation balance problem alone
is so serious that moving out to Jupiter's orbit may make sense.

> In practice, I think that if biological humans ever do live in space in any numbers, it will have to be preceded by upload colonisation and the creation of a lot of infrastructure, and the question remains: would it be worth the bother and expense? Especially when an uploading solution exists. You'd also have to haul tons and tons of fragile flesh up our steep gravity well, which is very expensive no matter how it's done, vs. a few watts of electricity to transmit some data.

While that is true, the energy cost to lift a person to space is a
small fraction of the energy they use on the ground in a year.  The
current energy use of a person is around 10 kW constant.  The energy
cost to lift a 100 kg to space is around 1500 kWh, which is around 6
days.  Even using rockets, the payback is less than a year.

> The more I think about it, the less I think that 'monkeys in space' is a viable scenario.

You may be right, but solving the upload problems is a long way off.

Keith
> --
> Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat