G'day,

I heard the Zubrin interview and I think Zubrin got the better of Golbus.
Zubrin's point is valid.
A space colony designed to provide 1g artifical gravity full radiation
protection etc. will be BIG.
Very BIG. Martian colonies (or Moon colonies fo that matter) can start off
much smaller.

If you want to properly conteract Zubrin design a colony of say, 100 people
not 10,000 but can expand.

ta

Ralph

From:
To:

I have done just that. Self sustaining at that.

In a message dated 1/7/2006 5:08:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ralphb@... writes:

> If you want to properly counteract Zubrin design a colony of say, 100
> people
> not 10,000 but can expand.
>
> ta Ralph

John Wayne Smith, CEO
1000Planets, Inc. http://www.1000Planets.com
Building a Road to the Stars
Leesburg, Florida

Ralph,

Concerning the need to compare apples with apples concerning relative
sizes of the settlements, I agree. Mike Combs has also done an
admirable job of covering this need in his "Space Settlement FAQ".
Also note that many people associated with orbital settlement advocacy
(Lee Valentine of SSI, for example) are advocating that an
evolutionary approach to orbital settlements is the most doable path:

Suborbital Tourism -> Orbital Tourism -> Orbital Hotels -> Et cetera.
(Operations Skills) (More Performance) (Staff Stays)

Where 2nd-generation orbital hotels (perhaps of the 100 inhabitant
size you mentioned) would be an ideal first application of critical
O'Neill technologies (centripetal pseudo-gravity and CELSS), since
shuttling staff is expensive. Turning back to the Zubrin interview,
the things that caught my attention was the statement that SPS power
would cost 500 times as much as buying and burning expensive suburban
tract housing in combustion power plants. I have _not_ seen any
numbers for this in any of Zubrin's books (I've read them all), nor
have I heard him mention it before this interview.

Note that in "Entering Space", Zubrin allowed as how power relay
satellites (PRS) might be doable; why then would he be willing to
consider a technology with path losses literally _double_ that of SPS,
while dismissing SPS out of hand (especially as it could be on an
evolutionary approach to SPS). He also props up a straw man in saying
that the advantage of SPS is increased sunlight intensity (ignoring
24/7/365 availability), then knocks it down with gusto by saying it's
easier to put twice as many PV panels in Arizona.

Finally, notice Zubrin's continued use of the term 'planet' to
describe O'Neill habitats, as well as considering Island
Three-sized habitats to be the first ones built; many of the lines of
argument he's using derive from a keen understanding of rhetoric.

Shane Brown

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ralph buttigieg"
>
> G'day,
>
> I heard the Zubrin interview and I think Zubrin got the better of
Golbus.
> Zubrin's point is valid.
> A space colony designed to provide 1g artifical gravity full radiation
> protection etc. will be BIG.
> Very BIG. Martian colonies (or Moon colonies fo that matter) can
start off
> much smaller.
>
> If you want to properly conteract Zubrin design a colony of say, 100
people