Space Colonies, CoEvolution

zeilouz · Post by **zeilouz** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:04 pm

FieryIce,

What is a bernal sphere?I would really like to know..=)

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm

Try the link with the pictures or better yet, try Google.

zeilouz · Post by **zeilouz** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:01 pm

Bernal Sphere

A Bernal sphere is a type of space habitat intended as a long-term home for permanent residents, first proposed in 1929 by Dr. John Desmond Bernal.

Dr. Bernal's original proposal described a hollow spherical shell 16 km in diameter, with a target population of 20,000 to 30,000 people. The Bernal sphere would be filled with air.

In a series of studies held at Stanford University in 1975 and 1976 with the purpose of speculating on designs for future space colonies, Dr. Gerard Kitchen O'Neill proposed a modified Bernal sphere with a diameter of only 500 m rotating at 1.9 RPM to produce a full Earth gravity at the sphere's equator. The result would be an interior landscape that would resemble a large valley running all the way around the equator of the sphere. Sunlight was to be provided to the interior of the sphere using external mirrors to direct it in through large windows near the poles. The form of a sphere was chosen for its optimum ability to contain air pressure and its optimum mass-efficiency at providing radiation shielding.

This version of the Bernal sphere was dubbed the "Island One" design, and was sized for a population of 10,000. For comparison, Island Two (the Stanford torus) would house 140,000, and Island Three (the O'Neill cylinder) can support a population of millions.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:39 pm

With creating gravity inside the Bernal Sphere, what would be the gravity on the outside surface of the sphere?

I suspect even goddess Nereid’s “modern concordance cosmological models” would have some figures on this since it is the only “scientific game in town.”

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:02 pm

If you are relying on centrifugal force to create gravity on the inside of a sphere, then on the outside there would be no gravity as the inertia caused by the rotation would tend to throw you off in the same direction as the force is propelling you on the inside.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:13 pm

Really, hummm

I wonder, if so, then applying this to planetary body in our solar system, then how would any surface material remain on the surface and not expelled off?
Just pondering.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:18 pm

Things on the surface of planets are held down by the specific gravity created by or inherent in the mass of the object. The Bernal Sphere doesn't have sufficient mass to maintain a noticeable external gravity which is why it depends on centrifugal force to create internal artificial gravity.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:24 pm

Thanks BMAone, I get what you are posting.

A slightly different topic than Bernal sphere but Dyson sphere.

Considering the story of Admiral Richard Byrd and his diary notes, he flew at a level of 2700’ from the surface in a continual flight with some gyro scope anomalous reading at one point. Some of this information is leaning more towards Earth being a Dyson sphere and could explain why geologists fudge some of their figures to fit their theories or to make their theories more plausible. The concept that Earth could be a Dyson sphere, moving from possible to a more probable explanation could answer a lot of the anomaly questions even though some of the information is derived from less than reputable sources.

The Untold UFO War in Antarctica. Part 1.
The Untold UFO War in Antarctica. Part 2.
The Untold UFO War in Antarctica. Part 3.

*Nereid, before you even consider jumping on this, piss off I am not discussing the UFO aspect only interpretations of anomaly reading as solid core vs. the same readings could be interrupted less anomalously as hollow or at least it is leaning more towards the probable.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:33 pm

This would never have occurred to me unless I had studied up on the idea of a Dyson Sphere concept for space habitats. This concept would lend it's self to many other much smaller space constructs also. There are several moons in our solar system that seem to be far too light (not enough mass) and may well contain vast hollow areas below their surfaces. I have had to rethink these concepts in light of all the new information we have of our solar system bodies in modern times.

Norval

makc · Post by **makc** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:47 pm

So, is this yet another way to shamballah?

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:28 pm

And another value added post by makc, , , NOT !

Well I could have added this I suppose, or this, or even this, , ,

makc · Post by **makc** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:43 pm

And another value added post by makc, , , NOT !

As if this remark was very valuable.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:26 am

The Discovery Channel had the conclusion episode Sunday of a Canadian mini series, Race to Mars. It was shades of Space Colonization and Energy Supply to the Earth again, proposed over 30 years ago. Even the Lander vehicle left in orbit around Mars, the Ascent/Descent Vehicle, the Gagarin, was an almost duplicate of the LEO (Low Earth Orbit) People/Freight Vehicle illustrated on page 16 of Space Colonies, CoEvolution Book, 1977 and proposed before the Sub-Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 1975.
The very last image of mini series was of a colony on Mars with a date of 2070 something, I am not entirely sure of that date since I was more interested in what the story line proposed for future structures, still shades of the 1970’s proposals for the Moon.

Entry, Descent and Landing on Mars

Testimony, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 23, 1975, Figure 8

I find it amazing that future project schemes by the science community today are just reworked and reworded past proposals.

Doum · Post by **Doum** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:42 pm

You're right.
I suppose it has to do with a first exploration of the planet wich can hardly be different then what they show( Cept for new lightweight material everything is the same). Unless a new engine is build( Nuclear uranium core using liquid hydrogen as fuel or a microfusion engine. Then may be 3 month to go there will be enough.) i dont see any other way to do a first visit. We as human are still using poor chemical reaction.

FieryIce, i too would also like to see new development in space engine.

A city can be built on the moon from the earth without sending any human just by using remote control tool send ovethere (2 seconds delay communication is easily feasible). Once the city is built then you send human. Mars is too far for that (Many minutes).
So, an advance space engine is needed or the protocole to go there (planet Mars) will stay the same.
Till then we are stuck with the old way of doing it.