"Space Settlers" is the group for people who think that
space settlements - huge rotating orbital habitats, or
space cities - are a better option for human colonization
in space than planetary colonization and terraforming. If
you agree with this idea, come and discuss with us the
better ways to make it a reality someday. If you don't
agree, come and expose what you think are the weak points
of that idea. Everyone who thinks that space colonization
is the next great step for Humanity is welcome!

Hello. My name is Patryk Stimson and I borrowed the above from the
intro page of this group because I have a few thoughts and wanted to
use it for reference. I also wanted to bring the last line to the
group's attention. I realize and generally agree with the overall
concept for the group; that of space settlement as opposed to lunar or
planetary settlement, but, I think the fans of orbital settlement may
be overlooking one, possibly, very important thing. While the moon
does have its drawbacks as colonization real estate, without it the
costs of extra terrestrial settlement is going to range from
exorbitant to unjustifiable. The moon does lack heavy metals but more
than makes up for that lack in lighter ( space construction quality)
metals, oxides, and minerals that can also be used for propellant
materials.

With that in mind it is my belief that the moon is going to be a first
stop in any off earth colonization endeavor. It will not only serve as
material source but as a school for space mining (both surface and
core) and transportation, but I think that it will become the shipyard
for the stars (if you will pardon me for waxing grandiose).On the
other hand, I don't see anything more than a large scientific presence
on Mars. That is, not unless discoveries are made by long term, on
site study that reveal some hereto unknown deposits of minerals or
some such. I think Mars is where we will learn, for future reference,
how to make a planet work for us.

So, if we are to get off this planet in the near future, for any
reason; and, the other planets in this solar system are to far away to
be viable for colonization, the only alternative we have is habitat
colonization. It makes the most sense commercially; as we can custom
design and build the colonies for specific needs and use.
Economically, in start up costs if every possible measure is
considered and accounted to make the project and prospect as
inexpensive as possible. In returns, being as this concept has the
greatest potential for quick economic return for the monies spent.
This would also include the cost vs. time of return equation.

Unfortunately, I think I am going to have to disagree with most of the
group in reference to means and methods. I have been poking around the
group and visiting some of the sites mentioned in the message boards
and I think I see a problem. It seems to me that most of the space
advocacy groups/organizations have their thinking a little backwards.
I have seen artist's concepts for huge space platforms with park like
interiors that are touted to comfortably house and support upwards of
tens of thousands of people. Like they want to build this large town
or small city in space. I have read articles where the proponents
intend to pay for the construction costs through tourism and such.
Sounds like an ad for the Queen Mary or Princess Cruise Lines writ
large. "Pick up a good sized picturesque town, fold it to fit into a
giant metal bubble, and sell tickets".

These are a couple of problems I see with this concept:
First, good sized towns aren't built, they grow to fit the needs of
their populace. In so doing, they have to fight to maintain their
"picturesque" nature.
Second, an economy based on tourism is, at best, unstable. Primarily
because in times of economic flux (which the country has been in for
several years), tourism is the first to suffer. Tourism should never
be the primary source of income for any community.
And finally, where would we be today if C. Columbus had waited for
something like the Queen Mary to embark on his explorations? The same
thing that will happen if we wait for all the technical difficulties
surrounding placing habitation for tens of thousands in orbit. If we
are to get into space, in any number, before the 22nd century, we are
going to have to look at concepts such as Standardization, Simplicity,
Versatility, and Expandability. The idea being get into space first,
then grow and show it off.

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts. I thought I would share
them with you (the group) and see what anyone else thinks. I look
forward to hearing from any members who would like to discuss these
things, or even argue with me. That could be fun too (smiles).

Thanks for "listening"

Patryk

Welcome.

In all honesty I doubt Tourism will do much to advance colonization
of space. No single industry will. O'Neall banks on Satallites both
power and communications both manufacture in cheap zero gravity and
maintenance to create industry that will finance the program.

Personally, I believe it will take a host of industries. Tourism will
make a small contribution.

As for settlements. Yes, they grow. But in space with the colonies,
the islands won't grow, the populaton will grow and trade up. Up from
an Island One to an Island Two when the Island One gets too small for
growing population increased both by immigration and a high
birthrate. Then to an Island Three and so on.

Personally, I see Island Ones as Company Towns for the Industries
that will establish the colonies. They build the Island Twos that
will recieve the new immigration and growing families much as
Jamestown and Plymouth Bay served as starters for the settlement by
the British of the North American Continent starting in Virginia and
New England. The Island Ones will then be recycled into Prisons or
Quarentines or even Collages. Some may be recycled by combing
additional Tauruses into Island Twos much like the Chrystal Palace
designs. As Population grows One Island Two with growing population
will construct a second and pair up much like the O'Neal Cylinders.
We may even see several islands forming together into chains under a
single government with a system of inter island ferries carrying
people much like the Puget sound has. Then onto the Island Threes and
then onto Island Fours as population grows.

Then will come the organization of Government.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Patryk" wrote:
>
> "Space Settlers" is the group for people who think that
> space settlements - huge rotating orbital habitats, or
> space cities - are a better option for human colonization
> in space than planetary colonization and terraforming. If
> you agree with this idea, come and discuss with us the
> better ways to make it a reality someday. If you don't
> agree, come and expose what you think are the weak points
> of that idea. Everyone who thinks that space colonization
> is the next great step for Humanity is welcome!
>
> Hello. My name is Patryk Stimson and I borrowed the above from the
> intro page of this group because I have a few thoughts and wanted to
> use it for reference. I also wanted to bring the last line to the
> group's attention. I realize and generally agree with the overall
> concept for the group; that of space settlement as opposed to lunar
or
> planetary settlement, but, I think the fans of orbital settlement
may
> be overlooking one, possibly, very important thing. While the moon
> does have its drawbacks as colonization real estate, without it the
> costs of extra terrestrial settlement is going to range from
> exorbitant to unjustifiable. The moon does lack heavy metals but
more
> than makes up for that lack in lighter ( space construction quality)
> metals, oxides, and minerals that can also be used for propellant
> materials.
>
> With that in mind it is my belief that the moon is going to be a
first
> stop in any off earth colonization endeavor. It will not only serve
as
> material source but as a school for space mining (both surface and
> core) and transportation, but I think that it will become the
shipyard
> for the stars (if you will pardon me for waxing grandiose).On the
> other hand, I don't see anything more than a large scientific
presence
> on Mars. That is, not unless discoveries are made by long term, on
> site study that reveal some hereto unknown deposits of minerals or
> some such. I think Mars is where we will learn, for future
reference,
> how to make a planet work for us.
>
> So, if we are to get off this planet in the near future, for any
> reason; and, the other planets in this solar system are to far away
to
> be viable for colonization, the only alternative we have is habitat
> colonization. It makes the most sense commercially; as we can custom
> design and build the colonies for specific needs and use.
> Economically, in start up costs if every possible measure is
> considered and accounted to make the project and prospect as
> inexpensive as possible. In returns, being as this concept has the
> greatest potential for quick economic return for the monies spent.
> This would also include the cost vs. time of return equation.
>
> Unfortunately, I think I am going to have to disagree with most of
the
> group in reference to means and methods. I have been poking around
the
> group and visiting some of the sites mentioned in the message boards
> and I think I see a problem. It seems to me that most of the space
> advocacy groups/organizations have their thinking a little
backwards.
> I have seen artist's concepts for huge space platforms with park
like
> interiors that are touted to comfortably house and support upwards
of
> tens of thousands of people. Like they want to build this large town
> or small city in space. I have read articles where the proponents
> intend to pay for the construction costs through tourism and such.
> Sounds like an ad for the Queen Mary or Princess Cruise Lines writ
> large. "Pick up a good sized picturesque town, fold it to fit into a
> giant metal bubble, and sell tickets".
>
> These are a couple of problems I see with this concept:
> First, good sized towns aren't built, they grow to fit the needs of
> their populace. In so doing, they have to fight to maintain their
> "picturesque" nature.
> Second, an economy based on tourism is, at best, unstable. Primarily
> because in times of economic flux (which the country has been in for
> several years), tourism is the first to suffer. Tourism should never
> be the primary source of income for any community.
> And finally, where would we be today if C. Columbus had waited for
> something like the Queen Mary to embark on his explorations? The
same
> thing that will happen if we wait for all the technical difficulties
> surrounding placing habitation for tens of thousands in orbit. If we
> are to get into space, in any number, before the 22nd century, we
are
> going to have to look at concepts such as Standardization,
Simplicity,

Henry,

First of all I would like to thank you for replying to my post. I
think that is what is needed if the dream of Space Colonization is
ever to become more than a "what if" topic of discussion. Let me add
that my posts, this reply included, are not intended to anger,
berate, or belittle anyone's opinions, concepts or ideas. I only wish
to engage in open discussion with like-minded individuals who may,
and probably do, have differing opinions. If you dont like my
opinions, disagree with me, or even have ideas that may complement
mine, let me know. I am not an engineer, dont work for nasa, and
definitely dont know everything. On the other hand, I dont think that
beating around the bush is the best way for people to discuss
anything.

I think you made good points about tourism and industry. However,
your points about trading up rather than growth to meet population
demand seem to me to be self-defeating. The whole concept here must
be to spend as little cash and time as possible, while still
providing for the needs of the populace. If we were to just chuck one
colony in favor of a new and improved model, the cost will rapidly
become as astronomical as the space we are trying to achieve. I
remember reading a story set in the hills of West Virginia about life
in a mining town. The town was a company town, owned by the local
mining consortium. Where everyone in the town was almost literally
owned by the consortium. If we are to do that, what we would create
is ghettos in space.

You also mentioned Plymouth Bay and Jamestown when talking about
starter settlements. The problem there is that they were started as a
program to relieve pressure of the prisons on the home islands. A
never ending mountain of debt will make your space borne islands the
same thing. So the question becomes, how to do this without incurring
that mountain of debt? Some of the ways I came up with to do
that are:
Simplicity- design and build a platform that is as simple as possible
and requires only assembly on location. This, of course, leaves out
the giant wheels turning in space that most every one seems so fond
of. While the rotating wheel may be the best shape and method in the
long run, we are going to have to start on a smaller scale. We don't
have the technology to inexpensively place giant wheels in space at
this time; there are, however, simpler designs available which
circumvent a lot of the technical difficulties such a project would
create. Designs which could be built on earth, disassembled and
packed into very small (for their ultimate size) packages for
transport into orbit. Where they can be re-assembled and plugged in.
Versatility- using a simple design, we must make this installation as
versatile as possible. In this way we can achieve the "most bang for
the buck", as it were. One designed unit that can serve as space
station, ship and landed "beachhead" (for such uses as initial mining
operations on the moon and/or larger asteroids). This one design
could be quickly, and with relative ease, modified and/or adapted to
meet most, if not all, of a viable space operation's needs; for a
whole lot less, in terms of time, manpower, and capital, than the
requirement to build purpose built vessels and installations.
Expandability- not included in the versatility argument, but just as
important, is the cost of expansion vs. cost of new construction. It
would seem that the cost of additional modules would be far
preferable to the cost of building a whole new installation whenever
the original one got crowded.
Standardization- this is the key to the whole thing. To make
everything the same, differing only in size and internal design. With
a standardized design, the only difference in space borne modules and
those intended to be grounded would be the inclusion or absence of a
carousel for pseudo-gravity. Whereas, the only difference between an
orbital station and a ship would be simply a change in internal
electronics, some switches, and what you attach the module to. I
believe that there should be a minimum of three(3) standard sizes of
module: thirty(30), forty-five(45), and sixty(60) foot modules, with
a one hundred(100) foot module available for specific use. These
modules should cover the entire spectrum of need for quite a long
time to come.

If you, or anyone, are/is interested in hearing more, I would love to
talk about it. I probably don't have all the answers and talking
about it will help me to find those answers.

Thank you for your time

Patryk

Patryk wrote:
>your points about trading up rather than growth to meet population
>demand seem to me to be self-defeating. The whole concept here must
>be to spend as little cash and time as possible, while still
>providing for the needs of the populace. If we were to just chuck one
>colony in favour of a new and improved model, the cost will rapidly
>become as astronomical as the space we are trying to achieve.

I would think of selling the first one for a slightly larger one, in the longer
term once we have some sort of infrastructure in orbit...

>Simplicity- design and build a platform that is as simple as possible
>and requires only assembly on location. This, of course, leaves out
>the giant wheels turning in space that most every one seems so fond
>of. While the rotating wheel may be the best shape and method in the
>long run, we are going to have to start on a smaller scale. We don't
>have the technology to inexpensively place giant wheels in space at
>this time;

I don't remember anybody suggesting placing one in orbit... I just see the
large stations drawn in depictions as the long term goals of orbital settlement,
not something we'll have tomorrow, nor something we would ever want to
launch up earth's steep gravity well... When we do have those, they will be
built from materials from the moon / asteroids, for people already
living & working in space.

>there are, however, simpler designs available which
>circumvent a lot of the technical difficulties such a project would
>create. Designs which could be built on earth, disassembled and
>packed into very small (for their ultimate size) packages for
>transport into orbit.

So you are suggesting launching a station from earth's surface? If I recall,
one of the concepts of O'Neill style space settlement, was to build these
things in space, with materials from space, for people living in space.
Before we have the infrastructure to build one, we (as far as I know) won't have
a sufficient population in space to justify building one anyways...

This is just my 2 cents tho, plus a couple dimes off Mike Combs's web site...
-Michael P.

> I would think of selling the first one for a slightly larger one,
in the longer
> term once we have some sort of infrastructure in orbit...

Hi Michael, Thanks for jumping in. A question for you, Whom would you
sell the first platform to? The backers, another colonial group, the
government? The fact is, there really would be few if any buyers for
a "slightly used" space platform. As a project of this size will
require a truly international commitment.

> I don't remember anybody suggesting placing one in orbit... I just
see the
> large stations drawn in depictions as the long term goals of
orbital settlement,
> not something we'll have tomorrow, nor something we would ever want
to
> launch up earth's steep gravity well... When we do have those, they
will be
> built from materials from the moon / asteroids, for people already
> living & working in space.

I think I see the problem here; it is simply one of perspective. You
are looking at the the "long view", sometime in the future; while I
am discussing a much shorter view, sometime within the next 5-15
years. We have the technology to launch such a platform, what is
lacking is the commitment from those who "hold the keys" to space.
Thus the need for a corporate/private space program.

> So you are suggesting launching a station from earth's surface? If
I recall,
> one of the concepts of O'Neill style space settlement, was to build
these
> things in space, with materials from space, for people living in
space.
> Before we have the infrastructure to build one, we (as far as I
know) won't have
> a sufficient population in space to justify building one anyways...

There is one difficulty with your argument: we will never "have a
sufficient population to justify building one" if we dont start.
Unless the Corporate/Private community sets a firm commitment to
occupy and populate space, the need for a space settlement will be
nothing more than an interesting topic of conversation. And, the only
way we are going to get there is launching it from Earth's surface.

Mr O'Neill had a truly grand vision; one that has proven to be
extrememly popular, if this and other space related groups are any
indication. BUT, his vision is not something that can just come into
being. It is something that must be "grown" into. I think space, and
the problems thereto, are just like the ocean, in a sense. We are at
the technological and societal stage where we are able, and should be
considering, building the Santa Maria. So that our modern Columbus
and party can begin their journey of discovery. Mr O'Neill is
envisioning the construction of the USS Nimitz. We can build a space
going version of the Santa Maria now; we wont be able to build a
space version of the Nimitz (technologically speaking) for at least
100 years. Yes, Mr O'Neill's designs will have to be built in space,
that is a given; what I am advocating is our getting into space and
growing to the point where those designs can be utilized effectively.

> This is just my 2 cents tho, plus a couple dimes off Mike Combs's
web site...
> -Michael P.

thanks agian for adding your "2 Cents", Michael. And thank you for
your time.

Patryk

Patryk wrote:

>Hi Michael, Thanks for jumping in. A question for you, Whom would you
>sell the first platform to? The backers, another colonial group, the
>government? The fact is, there really would be few if any buyers for
>a "slightly used" space platform. As a project of this size will
>require a truly international commitment.

I wouldn't know personally if one were ever sold, but that is in the longer
term. What I normally think of as putting something like this plan into motion
is not any intent to put cities in orbit, but starting out with asteroid miners,
space power sattelites and whatnot, each of wich making profit in it's own
right. At some point, it will simply be cheaper to build one of these stations
than to keep rotating crews from Earth.

This plan is outlined quite nicely on another website I like, permanent.com
http://www.permanent.com/index.htm
>I think I see the problem here; it is simply one of perspective. You
>are looking at the the "long view", sometime in the future; while I
>am discussing a much shorter view, sometime within the next 5-15
>years. We have the technology to launch such a platform, what is
>lacking is the commitment from those who "hold the keys" to space.
>Thus the need for a corporate/private space program.
Exactly. We have the technology to do it, just not the funds. Thus why
we go to space first to make a profit from mining, communications sattelites
and whatever else can be sold up there. O'Neill Islands will come when there
is a need for them, after profit is being made and many dozens if not over
a hundred employes of one company or another are in space.

>There is one difficulty with your argument: we will never "have a
>sufficient population to justify building one" if we dont start.
>Unless the Corporate/Private community sets a firm commitment to
>occupy and populate space, the need for a space settlement will be
>nothing more than an interesting topic of conversation. And, the only
>way we are going to get there is launching it from Earth's surface.
I would think that would only be necessary if we went for spacestations
as a first step. I think those will be along atleast a couple years after the commertialisation (sp?) of space.

>Mr O'Neill had a truly grand vision; one that has proven to be
>extrememly popular, if this and other space related groups are any
>indication. BUT, his vision is not something that can just come into
>being. It is something that must be "grown" into. I think space, and
>the problems thereto, are just like the ocean, in a sense. We are at
>the technological and societal stage where we are able, and should be
>considering, building the Santa Maria. So that our modern Columbus
>and party can begin their journey of discovery. Mr O'Neill is
>envisioning the construction of the USS Nimitz. We can build a space
>going version of the Santa Maria now; we wont be able to build a
>space version of the Nimitz (technologically speaking) for at least
>100 years. Yes, Mr O'Neill's designs will have to be built in space,
>that is a given; what I am advocating is our getting into space and
>growing to the point where those designs can be utilized effectively.

Good idea. But I think either way we will start out buy doing the easiest
step first, followed by the more complex ones.

>thanks agian for adding your "2 Cents", Michael. And thank you for
>your time.
>
>Patryk
And thankyou for your time aswell.
-Michael P.

Michael,
I have just spent most of the afternoon going over the "Permanent"
site you shared with me and I do agree that they do present some
pretty compelling arguments and program planning. But, they too seem
to be overlooking the one issue of vast importance...Getting there.

I took this from the permanent site to illustrate what I am saying:
There are a large number of present launch vehicles (Shuttle, Arianne,
Proton, Titan, etc.) made by various countries which use more or less
the same launch technology.
There are also current research and development programs using new
technologies and techniques for reducing the cost of Earth launch,
though there are no serious alternatives to chemical rocket launch in
the near future.
Covering these topics and issues is beyond the scope of PERMANENT,
which focuses on utilizing materials already in space. Launching
material up from Earth will be very expensive for the foreseeable
future, which is why we need to utilize materials already in space,
namely asteroidal and lunar materials.
Nonetheless, two things are notable:
1.Current launch vehicles in the research and development phase could
be scaled to launch payloads only to low Earth orbit. From there, a
fleet of reusable inter-orbital vehicles would be waiting to lift
cargoes up to higher orbits, e.g., geosynchronous orbit. The
inter-orbital vehicles would use fuels or propellants extracted from
asteroidal or lunar material. Thus, small rockets could deliver
satellites to geostationary orbit in conjunction with a reusable
inter-orbital vehicle using asteroidal and/or lunar propellants.
2.We will need Earth launch vehicles to deliver the first seed
industry to space to process asteroidal or lunar materials.
(www.permanent.com,
under section entitled "Transportation", sub-

section 3.3.5-
Earth Launch.)

This, it seems to me, appears to be a re-curring theme in the civilian
"Quest for Space" groups and organizations: They all want to present
grand schemes for civilization in space; the how we will live, why we
should go there, and what it could be worth. But they all seem to
think, or maybe are waiting for, someone else should solve the problem
of getting there. Granted, quite a few of these organizations you find
online are well written, well thought out, and often present options
and/or possibilities that are both feasible and plausible. But, even
those sites who recognize the need for achieving space before their
designs can be put into operation, seem to want to leave the "getting
there" to someone else.

That is my entire argument; the getting into space. Unfortunately, the
costs are enormous and there is no way to get funding for such a
venture unless we can make the profit to cost equation attractive to
potential backers. There is no question that the profits are out
there, there have been whole volumes written on that subject. And once
we get there, reigning in those profits will be a straight forward
matter. Therefore, we must focus on costs.

I think it a pretty fair conclusion that we wont see a breakthrough or
advance in Earth to Orbit propulsion any time in the near future. In
fact, its a pretty safe bet that we wont see one until after orbital
manufacturing, lunar and asteroid mining, and other space based
businesses are an established fact. Why? Because there is no real
impetus for them. While space business is still speculative, no one
really feels the need for making these things easier and bringing down
costs. But after they become established, we will be witness to a
virtual paper storm of theories, concept designs, and experiments, all
clamoring for money. Because the corporations are going to be
demanding more efficient and cost productive ways to get to the source
of their profits.

So, if we cant expect any changes in the way we get into space, we
must look for ways to A) make the ways we get there more efficient and
B) find possible ways to bring down costs. To make this truly
effective, we must build, at least in concept, an entire space
program. Not necessarily re-inventing what has already been
accomplished; but, studying how they did it and trying to find
adaptations or modifications which will allow us to accomplish the
same missions while reducing cost. I think, at least early on, that
modification will be the key. This will have 2 advantages: 1) being to
cut costs to something approaching that which the financiers might
find attractive in the profit vs. cost equation. 2) Make the
financiers comfortable with something familiar. Something that is, at
least, based on proven systems and not something completely untried.
This will also affect the profit/cost equation, as the evolutionary
process could take place without the long arduous and costly process
of developing new systems and technology.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Tell me what you think.

Thank you for your time.

Patryk

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Patryk" wrote:
>
> Mr O'Neill had a truly grand vision; one that has proven to be
> extrememly popular, if this and other space related groups are any
> indication. BUT, his vision is not something that can just come
into
> being. It is something that must be "grown" into. I think space,

It is (was) Dr. O'Neill. He is deceased.

The premise of the vision is solar power satelites to provide most of
Earth' energy.

That basic vision is still good. All it needs is for people to
realise:
a) SPS is feasible and
b) the higher cost of SPS is more than offset by:

- eliminating the balance of trade deficit (no more oil imports),
- remove the funding source (petrodollars) for a lot of unfriendly
countries and organizations (hence end the war on terror - greatly
reduced military spending)
- eliminate greenhouse gases (and other pollutants)
- eliminate nuclear power
- provide technological stimulus to the west

Best regards,

Charles R.

On Jan 08, 2007, at 14:57 UTC, Charles F. Radley wrote:

> The premise of the vision is solar power satelites to provide most of
> Earth' energy.
>
> That basic vision is still good. All it needs is for people to
> realise:
>
> a) SPS is feasible and

A small demonstration unit would go a long way to helping with this.
Something in LEO, so that the transmitter doesn't have to be so huge,
even though this complicates the aiming a bit and means intermittent
power. But the question remains, who would pay for such a
demonstration? It seems like the sort of thing NASA ought to do, but
clearly they're not going to. Groups like SSI and NSS don't have
anywhere near enough money to afford the launch, let along the
hardware, I think. So that leaves either other countries (Japan is a
remote possibility), or hope for an angel like Munsk, Branson, or Allen.

It's also remotely possible that DARPA or DOE could be persuaded to
fund it, but I think the driving force for that would have to come from
within.

> b) the higher cost of SPS is more than offset by:
> - eliminating the balance of trade deficit (no more oil imports),
> - remove the funding source (petrodollars) for a lot of unfriendly
> countries and organizations (hence end the war on terror - greatly
> reduced military spending)
> - eliminate greenhouse gases (and other pollutants)

These all seem like obviously great benefits to me, but it's amazing
how many otherwise intelligent people will argue with any one of them
(or in extreme cases, all three!).

> - eliminate nuclear power

This one was a stumbling block for me for a while. Nuclear power is
actually a great technology, quite safe with modern power plants, and
the waste-disposal issue isn't as big of a problem as most people
believe. But I've recently come to realize that nuclear proliferation
is a real problem. Anybody who can build a power reactor can build a
breeder reactor (producing plutonium) too, and as more nuclear reactors
come online, it's going to be harder and harder to keep terrorists from
building nuclear bombs. This may be reason enough to eschew nuclear
power, at least as long as other options are available.

> - provide technological stimulus to the west

Another good one, though harder to quantify.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...

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

> I have seen artist's concepts for huge space platforms with park like
interiors that are touted to comfortably house and
> support upwards of tens of thousands of people. Like they want to
build this large town or small city in space. I have
> read articles where the proponents intend to pay for the construction
costs through tourism and such.
> Sounds like an ad for the Queen Mary or Princess Cruise Lines writ
large. "Pick up a good sized picturesque town, fold
> it to fit into a giant metal bubble, and sell tickets".

You might need to know that in the era in which those artists'
conceptions were created, it was anticipated that SPS construction from
space materials would be the economic justification for the construction
of space habitats. It was reasoned that such space workers might number
into the thousands, and that it might be possible to reduce worker
turnover if there was some reasonably pleasant place to live permanently
somewhere nearby. It was also realized that once you had put into place
all of the infrastructure for making SPS from space resources, making
space habitats from same would be much easier.

If you've read more recent work saying that this is going to instead be
done in support of tourism, I can only suppose that's because we have
had a small amount of real-world validation of orbital tourism, but have
yet to see even a small demonstrator SPS. I think tourism might
eventually result in Island One type habitats, but would see that being
a very lengthy, evolutionary process, as such habitats slowly descended
from space hotels in a series of incremental improvements.

> And finally, where would we be today if C. Columbus had waited for
something like the Queen Mary to embark on his
> explorations? The same thing that will happen if we wait for all the
technical difficulties surrounding placing
> habitation for tens of thousands in orbit.

There has been considerable talk on this maillist about much more modest
and nearer-term habitats (perhaps using a bolo geometry). Even back in
the day of the original High Frontier discussions, there were designs
for such "construction shacks" which used discarded Space Shuttle ETs as
their primary component.

Regards,

Mike Combs