Talk-Polywell.org

I've been working all summer on a new video game where you design, build, and manage space settlements. It's called High Frontier.



The game is based on realistic physics, and has already led to several scientifically relevant insights. For example, it turns out that inverted endcaps (like the bottom of a soda can) increase the stability of a cylindrical colony, and that the best place to build an early colony is probably low-Earth orbit. (I co-authored a recent paper about that one with Al Globus.)

We've just launched a KickStarter campaign to fund the second major phase of development, where you get to go inside the colony and manage your orbital city in detail.

Our goal is to both entertain and inspire. Please check it out, and if you think it has merit, consider giving us your support. Thank you!

Doesn't support linux?

I'm also wondering if the economic model in the game is good or totally messed up.

Sorry, no Linux support at this time. That would make a sensible stretch goal if we surpass the base goal, though.

As for the economic model, it will be simple, but I think it will capture the most important elements needed for the game.

Have you thought about contacting Gary Hudson to see if you and SSI can work out some mutually beneficial arrangement to put you both in the spotlight?

I forwarded Gary your link, BTW.

Thank you for the suggestion. I posted to the SSI mailing list, but I haven't tried contacting Gary directly.

Thanks for forwarding the link, and I'll see if I can follow up with him myself!

Best,
- Joe

- redacted for privacy -

Looks pretty cool so far. I always likes simulations. Ever think of pitching your game to some company like EA? The bought Strategic Simulations and Mindscape back in the day, so they still may have some departments that make such games.

Oh, and since this is General, I will add that if you take some cannabinoids while you code, you will find your quality and your output magically improved by at least an order of magnitude. There are numerous studies that support this assertion.

I just got an invite to a couple of Mars conferences. The first is a 1-day workshop at American University (in DC) on Dec 2, called "Why Mars?"

The second is May 5-7, 2015, called Humans To Mars (H2M), also in DC.

I've found nothing on the 'net on the first, but there's a page for the May conference, if you're interested.

The question "Why Mars" clicks with me, as I'm a belter, more inclined to go for O'Neil colonies (per the book High Frontier). I'm an old L-5er (aka Elf Hiver), with an aversion to going down into gravity wells unnecessarily.

This game would probably supply some good talking points.

I just mentioned this on LinkedIn. I have a bunch of space and SF connections, so maybe some of them will be interested.

with an aversion to going down into gravity wells unnecessarily.

So, Tom, you're not sold on Elon Musk's dream of setting up a Mars colony? Isn't it a natural resources and radiation shield sort of issue? I suppose it all boils down to economics.

Dr. Bussard was obsessed by Mars. We had friendly discussions about it.

My main objection to both Luna and Mars is that we can't be sure humans can live permanently on either one due to the low gravity. I strongly suspect we can't develop and maintain healthy bones at 1/3 g. Space habitats, on the other hand, can be spun up to 1 g, but offer the interesting option of having a range of gravity available as needed. Pick your radius. We've done research on zero gees ... definitely unhealthy. We have no data at all on intermediate levels, and must have those data before establishing human presence on low gee worlds.

If we're exploiting asteroids and comets as we should, the slag will provide all the shielding we need.

But the common ground of the two approaches is the need for transportation. Getting to LEO is half the problem ... Mars and Luna are easier gravity wells to deal with. Several approaches which are huge technical problems on our home planet are much easier on the smaller bodies. Polywell-powered spacecraft outlined by RWB solve the interplanetary transportation challenges for either Mars or the belt. We'll pick what economics dictate, but I expect industry will pick asteroids.

Tom, in a nutshell, how little worth it is the extra hassle of Ceres' gravity well? Considering its ostensibly useful mass and (IIRC) the gravity well being weak enough that space elevators would already be feasible. Seems like an easy enough starting point for building on Ceres like those long stalked mold species

Tom Ligon wrote:My main objection to both Luna and Mars is that we can't be sure humans can live permanently on either one due to the low gravity.

Finding the answer to this question is the subject of SSI's "G-Lab" initiative. Anyone with an intersst might consider joining and supporting the cause.


http://ssi.org/

Personally I think we need to learn to live both in cities in the sky and on planets with various gravity, and for most transport we need to have a propulsion system that generates constant 1 Gee solutions, meaning one Earth gee acceleration as the constant experience of those flying in the ships. You can go faster, but that gives reasonable and economically feasible travel times anywhere in our planetary system.

Tom, thank you very much for sharing the project!

We're halfway through the campaign and oh-so-close to halfway funded. I'm sure there are still plenty of space enthusiasts (or city-simulation gamers) out there who haven't heard about it yet, so the more we can spread the word, the better.

I agree that we will almost certainly have a mixture of planetary and orbital bases — but as Tom points out, we don't know yet how much gravity is needed for children to grow up healthy, and a base without children isn't really a settlement. So, we may end up with orbital settlements housing most of the population around (say) the Moon and Mars, with workers commuting to the surface for their mining or research or tourism or whatever sort of jobs they have there.

In researching interesting orbits for High Frontier, I found that there is a stable low-Lunar orbit (LLO) at 100 km altitude, 27° inclination. This would provide a really amazing view, and you also get some protection from cosmic rays with the Moon filling nearly half the sky.

To all: If you haven't supported the KickStarter yet, I'd very much appreciate it — you know I run this site on my own dime and have never asked for anything before, nor am I likely to ask again. A pledge to High Frontier would be the perfect way to say "thank you" this Thanksgiving season.

A sustainable 1 gee acceleration drive allows for the ship to life off the surface of the Earth and to get to the Kuiper Belt in about 3 weeks travel time. No need for separate Earth to LEO launch vehicle and then transfer to interplanetary ship for deep space travel. It would be like the only 1940's SF where a ship would life off from the Earth and travel anywhere in the solar system.

3 weeks travel time to the Kuiper belt effectively opens up the entire solar system for O'neill style space colonization. Of course all of the other technologies (asteroid mining, materials processing, large scale habitat construction, and bio-sphere) have to be developed to make all of this happen.