Hi all. Man, have I fallen behind here! But I was reading "how to
build the station" and "alternate method of building kalphite one or
simular station" and noticed that a lot of thought was going into how
to provide a place for the construction crew to live while the habitat
is being built. Some interesting stuff, but I wonder if it is necessary.

We need to consider the very likely possibility that by the time
anything like Kalpana One or Stanford Torus or Bernal Sphere is
started, there are probably several substantial objects in space
already. In particular, there will almost certainly be a number of
space hotels. Why not just stay there while the Island is being
built? No reason to build a "construction shack" for the workers when
there is an ""Otbital Hilton or "Space Princess Cruiser" already.

I've mentioned this before, but here it is again:

one humongus problems with this. where are the ppl constructing the
hotel going to live. unless your "Space Princess Cruiser" is a earth
launched vehicle its not going to be able to carry the kind of
passagers that would make it worth while. if it is and somehow able
to launch (meaning a totally new kind of launch system has to be
invented first), then the would charge more for the living space for
the construction crew than the rest of the structure cost.

the way i see it, one of two ways will be done. either way it will
only be very spartan for the first few months.

1) after the first part is constructed, they will live there in an
area that will house 10 times as many colonist when its finished.
they will still work in the construction ring, but those facilities
would be not be worse than the working conditions in a high rise
office building.

2) the diameter of the construction ring will be the same size as the
final station. unlike the final station, the construction station
will have few long term workers. the great majority of the work would
be done by robots with the work that requires more hands on being
done by robecs (romote operated bio-equivalent constructs) that would
be just like a man manhandling the objects. a single person could
handle several robots, and the person handling the robec could use
voice control for simple robotic controls. this means that there
would never be more than a 100 ppl at the station, with 25 to 50
there more often. what i invision is two rings 250 meter in diameter,
55 meters in width ea counter rotating with three lvls 10 meters
apart. this will give each of the 50 current residence 100,000 cubic
meters to use. thats conciderably more than the permanite residence
of kalphite one will have. with the stress of working in such a
hazzardous environment, i beleive they would need it. 50 ppl per
rotation would mean 10 ppl per 9 to 10 hour shift (over lapping for
more continuacy), 10 support staff, and 10 ppl on off days.

you obviously believe it will be a very long time before one of these
is built, but i believe one can be built within the next 20 years.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> Hi all. Man, have I fallen behind here! But I was reading "how to
> build the station" and "alternate method of building kalphite one or
> simular station" and noticed that a lot of thought was going into
how
> to provide a place for the construction crew to live while the
habitat
> is being built. Some interesting stuff, but I wonder if it is
necessary.
>
> We need to consider the very likely possibility that by the time
> anything like Kalpana One or Stanford Torus or Bernal Sphere is
> started, there are probably several substantial objects in space
> already. In particular, there will almost certainly be a number of
> space hotels. Why not just stay there while the Island is being
> built? No reason to build a "construction shack" for the workers
when

1)apparently your hotels are zero g. that means that a lot of ppl
will get there and become very ill. i believe the stat is about 1 in
ten cant handle zero g. how do you plan on handling them. unless
they are specifically trained, your guess will not be able to do much
and will be exhausted very quickly.

2)building a space station of any type from components built on earth
(the only way to do this) means a very large amount of fuel will be
needed to get them into space. every single part of it would have to
be lifted from the earth via space shuttle or very large rocket. with
a station built in space, much of your insulation would be derived
from regolith from either the moon or asteroids. this by itself would
be a humongus saving both in time and money.

a hotel build in a station built in space would be cheaper, easier to
build and would have a lot more amenaties that the rich would expect.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> The big space hotels will be built by workers living part time
> (rotated to Earth every four months or so) in smaller space hotels.
> Those smaller space hotels will be built by workers living in a very
> spartan, launched-in-modules-from-Earth facility and rotated to
Earth
> every month or so. These very spartan modules may be the very first
> space hotels, only acceptable to adventure tourists for a week or
so.
> Thus when something better is built, the Spartans will go for a
song.

--- In spacesettlers, "Robert" wrote:

> 1)apparently your hotels are zero g. that means that a lot of ppl
> will get there and become very ill. i believe the stat is about 1 in
> ten cant handle zero g. how do you plan on handling them. unless
> they are specifically trained, your guess will not be able to do
> much and will be exhausted very quickly.

Certainly the very first hotels will be zero-G. And yes, a lot of
people will find themselves not getting their money's worth, in the
sense that they will spend their vacation feeling sick. This will
push the market towards better motion sickness drugs, and eventual
artificial gravity. ISS is, among other things, a zero-G hotel.

> 2)building a space station of any type from components built on
> earth (the only way to do this) means a very large amount of fuel
> will be needed to get them into space. every single part of it would
> have to be lifted from the earth via space shuttle or very large
> rocket.

Well, yeah. Whatever hotel or construction shack or whatever, you
need to have people in space to use space resorces. So the first
facilities will have to be launched from Earth. Indeed, we have
already started that.

> with a station built in space, much of your insulation would be
> derived from regolith from either the moon or asteroids. this by
> itself would be a humongus saving both in time and money.

Absolutely. We should start using lunar and/or astroidial resorces as
soon as possible. But if we state that we can't do stuff with space
resorces until we do stuff with space resorces, it becomes
chicken-or-egg. It's just like the colonists arriving in the New
World: the original ships had to be built in Europe, but to get
anywhere, they had to use resorces from the New World itself. It
wouldn't work if every mutton chop and wooden board came from England
or Spain or wherever. But the first Nina, Pinta, Mayflower, and so on
couldn't be built in the New World, because the builders had to get
here first. Now I'm repeating myself.

> a hotel build in a station built in space would be cheaper, easier
> to build and would have a lot more amenaties that the rich would
> expect.

Yeah. The huge "Constellation" type of hotels (ten thousand tons, 650
passengers) will need lunar and/or astroidial resorces. But the "ISS
for civilians" things at the beginning will be launched from Earth,
rocket costs and all.

First launched-from-Earth, then
launched-from-Earth-but-expanded-with-ET-resorces (perhaps only a
layer of moondust as radiation shielding at first), then
mostly-from-space-with-a-little-bit-launched-from-Earth, and
eventually from-space-with-little-or-nothing-launched-from-Earth.

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Xenophile

> Certainly the very first hotels will be zero-G. And yes,
> a lot of people will find themselves not getting their money's
> worth, in the sense that they will spend their vacation feeling
> sick. This will push the market towards better motion sickness
> drugs, and eventual artificial gravity.

Two important points here:

Tourists would be able to use existing motion sickness drugs which NASA
would never permit working astronauts to use because they make you
somewhat drowsy.

Even severe cases of space sickness tend to clear up in a couple of days
or so. This means a weekend in space might be something of a
disappointment if you're one of the unlucky ones, but a week-long stay
probably wouldn't be.

> First launched-from-Earth, then
> launched-from-Earth-but-expanded-with-ET-resorces
> (perhaps only a layer of moondust as radiation shielding
> at first),

I've seen a proposal for modules with a double-walled construction with
about 6 feet clearance between the walls. When lunar regolith becomes
available in orbit, it's shoveled into this gap, and you have your
radiation shield. When you start refining lunar ores, you're pulling
out soil, but placing back in an equivalent amount of leftover slag.
Eventually, the entire shield is slag. In this way, you start getting
usefulness out of lunar resources before you've even gotten set up to
start processing them.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"

>
>ISS is, among other things, a zero-G hotel.

so you think the countries building space station freedom will just
turn it over to some buisness to rent out to the extreamly rich. they
are the only ones that could afford to go up in the shuttle. in case
your not aware, they decided not to use the shuttle for anything but
trips to the station. even then it will take many years before they
finish the experments they have planned now. so when does it become a
hotel.
>
> Well, yeah. Whatever hotel or construction shack or whatever, you
> need to have people in space to use space resorces. So the first
> facilities will have to be launched from Earth. Indeed, we have
> already started that.
>
no actually, the best way to do the first part is to use robots to do
the first part, then send a crew in after the inital part is finished
to the point of being as safe as possible.
>
> Absolutely. We should start using lunar and/or astroidial resorces
as
> soon as possible. But if we state that we can't do stuff with space
> resorces until we do stuff with space resorces, it becomes
> chicken-or-egg.

no. we use robots to do the initial mining of an asteroid, then a
crew takes a bare minimum of needed stuff with them (the rest already
there) and they build it via remote control from inside the asteroid.
with the asteroid spinning, it would be like working in a office
building on earth save that the lag time for transmitions would be
lowered. in a matter of months they would have a facility on the new
station for them to live in and would not have any lag what so ever.
the entire time they would not be under zero g. you could even sell
tickets to the very rich to spend a week or so on the astroid.
accomidations would be rather sparce, but would be getting better.

It's just like the colonists arriving in the New
> World: the original ships had to be built in Europe, but to get
> anywhere, they had to use resorces from the New World itself. It
> wouldn't work if every mutton chop and wooden board came from
England
> or Spain or wherever. But the first Nina, Pinta, Mayflower, and so
on
> couldn't be built in the New World, because the builders had to get
> here first. Now I'm repeating myself.
>
so the ships should be built on earth and the station built using
materials from space, just like the pilgrams did.
>
> Yeah. The huge "Constellation" type of hotels (ten thousand tons,
650
> passengers) will need lunar and/or astroidial resorces....

unless i mistaken an opject that is capable of warp 9, is armed with
photon torpedos and phaser banks, would not be concidered a hotel.

...But the "ISS
> for civilians" things at the beginning will be launched from Earth,
> rocket costs and all.
>
> First launched-from-Earth, then
> launched-from-Earth-but-expanded-with-ET-resorces (perhaps only a
> layer of moondust as radiation shielding at first), then
> mostly-from-space-with-a-little-bit-launched-from-Earth, and
> eventually from-space-with-little-or-nothing-launched-from-Earth.
>

why not skip the first and second and go straight to the third. its
cheaper, safer and can be done now.

--- In spacesettlers, "Robert" wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers, "Xenophile" wrote:

>> ISS is, among other things, a zero-G hotel.

> so you think the countries building space station freedom will just
> turn it over to some buisness to rent out to the extreamly rich.

Nope, but it is a destination for really, really rich guys like Tito.

> they are the only ones that could afford to go up in the shuttle.

Tourists don't go up on Shuttle; they go up on Soyuz.

> in case your not aware, they decided not to use the shuttle for
> anything but trips to the station. even then it will take many years
> before they finish the experments they have planned now.

Good. The less they use that thing the better.

> so when does it become a hotel.

Already has. Ask Tito. Ask Shuttleworth (gotta love that name!).
Ask that boy-band singer who didn't get to go.

>> Well, yeah. Whatever hotel or construction shack or whatever, you
>> need to have people in space to use space resorces. So the first
>> facilities will have to be launched from Earth. Indeed, we have
>> already started that.

> no actually, the best way to do the first part is to use robots to
> do the first part, then send a crew in after the inital part is
> finished to the point of being as safe as possible.

Robots aren't that good yet. They will be, but not yet.

>> Absolutely. We should start using lunar and/or astroidial resorces
>> as soon as possible. But if we state that we can't do stuff with
>> space resorces until we do stuff with space resorces, it becomes
>> chicken-or-egg.

> no. we use robots to do the initial mining of an asteroid, then a
> crew takes a bare minimum of needed stuff with them (the rest
> already there) and they build it via remote control from inside the
> asteroid.
> with the asteroid spinning, it would be like working in a office
> building on earth save that the lag time for transmitions would be
> lowered. in a matter of months they would have a facility on the
> new station for them to live in and would not have any lag what so
> ever.

This is a good idea, but I suspect that this will not happen in
isolation (I almost said "in a vacuum" until I realized...). There
will be other things being done while the asteroid is being mined.
Even before the asteroid is being mined. Unmanned porbes to Mars and
Titan. Small tests of LEO SPS. Millitary experiments. And Low Earth
Orbit tourism in space hotels, the first being launched from Earth.

> the entire time they would not be under zero g. you could even sell
> tickets to the very rich to spend a week or so on the astroid.
> accomidations would be rather sparce, but would be getting better.

The accomadations in LEO would be better, but I can well believe that
some adventurous souls would pay extra to "rough it" on an asteroid.

>> It's just like the colonists arriving in the New World: the
>> original ships had to be built in Europe, but to get anywhere, they
>> had to use resorces from the New World itself. It wouldn't work if
>> every mutton chop and wooden board came from England or Spain or
>> wherever. But the first Nina, Pinta, Mayflower, and so on couldn't
>> be built in the New World, because the builders had to get here
>> first. Now I'm repeating myself.

> so the ships should be built on earth and the station built using
> materials from space, just like the pilgrams did.

Yes. The first *small stations* would be launched from Earth, because
you need some presence in space in order to build the big stuff. But
by the time we're building whole cities (or even really big hotels,
see below), we would be using space resorces.

>> Yeah. The huge "Constellation" type of hotels (ten thousand tons,
>> 650 passengers) will need lunar and/or astroidial resorces....

> unless i mistaken an opject that is capable of warp 9, is armed with
> photon torpedos and phaser banks, would not be concidered a hotel.

My bad. I should have stuck with "Space Princess Cruiser" and
"Orbital Hilton" instead of making up a new name.

>> ...But the "ISS for civilians" things at the beginning will be
>> launched from Earth, rocket costs and all.
>>
>> First launched-from-Earth, then
>> launched-from-Earth-but-expanded-with-ET-resorces (perhaps only a
>> layer of moondust as radiation shielding at first), then
>> mostly-from-space-with-a-little-bit-launched-from-Earth, and
>> eventually from-space-with-little-or-nothing-launched-from-Earth.

> why not skip the first and second and go straight to the third. its
> cheaper, safer and can be done now.

The first step IS being done now, and thus is not skippable. It's too
late to skip what is already being done. And I don't really think we
are at a point that we can skip the second. Robots aren't that good.
Not yet.

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert

> if we can build a robot to explore the surface of mars with no
> actually hands on controls, we can build robots that can mine
> an asteroid under close watch.

The two activities may not be directly comparable. Plus, anybody from
the Mars Society would argue vigorously that Spirit and Opportunity are
not doing as good a job exploring Mars as would two people in their
place.

> for even better control we can use robecs (romote operated bio
> equivalant constructs) that are under total control of the operator.

Actually, we can't due to the signal-lag problem. We can probably
teleoperate as far out as the moon, but not even as far out as a NEA.

> i dont think you are as aware of what robots are capable as you
> think.

OK. Mining is exceedingly dangerous work. We've just recently had yet
another mining accident. There should be a strong inducement to replace
human miners with robots. Can you name any mining operations in which
as much as half of the staff is robotic?

I'd say the same thing to this that I say to people who think we can
start developing space tomorrow using carbon nanotube space elevators or
replicating systems: the time to start getting excited about the space
application of these technologies is after we already see them around us
here on Earth. We will see carbon nanotubes on suspension bridges,
replicators in the Sahara, and completely automated coal mines years
before we see any of these technologies transferred to space.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> The two activities may not be directly comparable. Plus, anybody
from
> the Mars Society would argue vigorously that Spirit and Opportunity
are
> not doing as good a job exploring Mars as would two people in their
> place.
>

I agree that two ppl would be better explorers there, but its a
safety issue.

>
> Actually, we can't due to the signal-lag problem. We can probably
> teleoperate as far out as the moon, but not even as far out as a
NEA.
>
thats why you bring the nea into earth orbit.

> OK. Mining is exceedingly dangerous work. We've just recently had
yet
> another mining accident. There should be a strong inducement to
replace
> human miners with robots. Can you name any mining operations in
which
> as much as half of the staff is robotic?

humans dont cost a fraction of the cost of robots of that nature. its
human nature for buisnesses to be a bit slow to change. its also a
human nature for the miners to not want to be replaced by robots.
>
> I'd say the same thing to this that I say to people who think we can
> start developing space tomorrow using carbon nanotube space
elevators or
> replicating systems: the time to start getting excited about the
space
> application of these technologies is after we already see them
around us
> here on Earth. We will see carbon nanotubes on suspension bridges,
> replicators in the Sahara, and completely automated coal mines years
> before we see any of these technologies transferred to space.
>
the first two i agree. why? because it would not risk anyone job
using carbon nanotubes instead of steel in suspension bridges. same
with replicators in sahara. on the other hand, the technology to
replace miners with robots has been around for at least a decade, but
the miners dont want to be replaced and the cost is considerably more
than the miners salery, and training. manufatures of all kinds have
been going through the same problem putting robotic equipment in
place of paid workers. in space, there are no miners to replace. they
will go with robotics long before mining underground does.

From: Robert dehammer@...

> the technology to replace miners with robots has been around for at least a decade,

Oh, how I wish you were right.

What has been around is remote controlled equipment. This has been used in both coal and hardrock mining. This can improve safety and productivity. Typically the operator is close by. Autonomous operation is a long way off.

> in space, there are no miners to replace. they will go with robotics long before mining underground does.

Has nothing to do with protecting jobs. Robots will be prominant as advances make them the most effective approach. Mike is right: we'll see these advances reliably working on earth long before we see them prolificly in space.

Automation does not give a slight advantage to productivity. It can be a multiplier. Consider, some of the most advanced mining operations on planet earth are in Chile. Note that labor costs in Chile are a lot lower than Germany. Some new and very modern mines are opening in China this year. Why invest in technology if labor is not expensive? Because the best technology can yield the most efficient and reliably production.

As for jobs: The miners are not driving the advances. The economics are.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Matt Gallimore
wrote:
>
> Oh, how I wish you were right.
>
> What has been around is remote controlled equipment. This has been
used in both coal and hardrock mining. This can improve safety and
productivity. Typically the operator is close by. Autonomous
operation is a long way off.

fully automated uncontrolled robots are a thing of the future, no
arguement there.
>
> Has nothing to do with protecting jobs. Robots will be prominant
as advances make them the most effective approach. Mike is right:
we'll see these advances reliably working on earth long before we see
them prolificly in space.

sorry to disagree, but there was an attempt in the 80's to replace a
bunch of miners in (not sure about this) Africa, but the result was
that there were a lot of strange accidents that kept happening to the
robots. things like cave-ins that once they were dug out, were found
to be caused by a missing support beam, although the beam was clearly
placed in the recording the robot made. or when a explosive was
inserted into a hole, and a wire attached, it immediately went off,
despite the fact that it required several more connections and a
battery to set it off. the robots were not productive due to all of
these accidents and were replaced by ppl. interesting enough, there
was an accident in the mines about 9 months latter that killed
several dozen men, who would not have been at risk with the robot.
>
> Automation does not give a slight advantage to productivity. It
can be a multiplier. Consider, some of the most advanced mining
operations on planet earth are in Chile. Note that labor costs in
Chile are a lot lower than Germany. Some new and very modern mines
are opening in China this year. Why invest in technology if labor is
not expensive? Because the best technology can yield the most
efficient and reliably production.
>
> As for jobs: The miners are not driving the advances. The
economics are.
>
only if the machines are not destroy faster than they pay for
themselves

> > if we can build a robot to explore the surface of mars with no
> > actually hands on controls, we can build robots that can mine
> > an asteroid under close watch.

Mike Combs
>The two activities may not be directly comparable. Plus, anybody from
>the Mars Society would argue vigorously that Spirit and Opportunity are
>not doing as good a job exploring Mars as would two people in their
>place.

Absolutely. Thank you. As to safety, it's still a question of economics. If
we send people, it's horrendously more expensive, but we get back so much
more science, that maybe the investment versus robotics is paid off. (Even
better if they're building lasting infrastructure, instead of expendable
junk, collecting science).
And Spirit and Opportunity are not "hands off" robotics -we've never had
anything even slightly like that. They have to be told where they're going
from one communications window to the next, and they're held in place when
there's no chance for communicating with them. They don't rove on until they
stumble into something interesting, because they'd "stumble" into a rock too
big to safely drive over and tip themselves over dumbly driving on, with no
regard at all for being increasingly off-balance. They almost lost the
Pathfinder/Sojourner rover that way: at the next update from its cameras,
they found that it was tipped dangerously, and it took them most of a Sol
figuring out how to safely recover it.
It takes days driving it over flat ground a few hundred meters, and in the
first day, an astronaut would have suited up, been there, done many times
better science, and come back and written her report and slept a night, and
done other things.

The best we can look forward to -barring major unforeseen advances- is
tele-robotics like this. If they're as far out as an NEA or Mars, then it
takes a while going around -longer than the achingly slow drive times would
indicate.
If not our Moon, then a harnessed/captured NEA is the best thing we could do
for good quality resources in near-Earth space.
As to mining an NEA, I like the image from a page at permanent.com: de-spin
& bag it, and send rovers into it, anchored to nets stapled across the body,
and kick up dust to be collected inside the spinning bag. Any harder chunks
in it are dealt with, but a nice fragile extinct comet core would be just
about right.