sraj wrote:
> Mike, Joe,
>
> 1. We should keep in mind that any movement in space will involve loss of
> mass from the system, so lugging resources from one system to another far
> away, will not be efficient in terms of conservation of mass.

> 2. In this sense, a gravity well like Earth has major advantages. It
> conserves mass.

Selvaraj,

you will have a difficult task to convince most members of this group
(including me) that settling on a gravity well would be the optimal way
to conquer space.

If you use a solar sail spacecraft moving of mass involves no loss of
mass, since the spacecraft principally works fuelless.

In terms of "lugging" resources;
what would you think about a space base system which needs 90 % of the
fuel just to get out of it's gravity well?

This is the actual state of our rocket technology. Our launchers use up
90 % of their capacity to carry fuel which in a few minutes is burned
off just to get out of the gravity well of Earth. Is this really as mass
conserving as you propose?
You can stay on Earth and save fuel for sure, but for that you don't
have to go to Mars also.

In the remaining 10 % of the launchers initial total mass you have to
put all what you need to get down the gravity well of Mars again
including live support systems (water, air, food) for humans which want
to settle Mars.

If you had a space settlement orbiting Earth or an asteroid and would
start the operation Mars from there getting off the settlement would
need perhaps much less than 1 % of fuel.

OK, Mars as a base for further operations would not need as much fuel as
Earth based operations but it would be considerable more as a space
habitat needs.

My take to getting humanity into space would be completely different.

I would send out relative small (and therefore cheap) robotic mothership
spacecraft to near Sun asteroids which prospect and return asteroidal
materials to the only existing space habitat we already have - the ISS.

There the already existing research capacity would be used to find ways
how to refine those materials and use them to produce products which are
used in space - like fuel, water, solar cells, spacecraft-hulls and
-structures.

The ISS and later other space-stations specialized on mounting and
servicing spacecraft would become the return point of a fleet of those
space based mothership-spacecrafts were they are serviced, refueled and
updated. After the initial launch of a mothership it could do not only
one but several missions. Launching them again would not be necessary.

Those remote-handled motherships with their lander- and
communication/observation daughter units even with low thrust propulsion
could return tons (Earth weight) of asteroidal materials with each
mission to LEO. This "lugging" of resources under micro-gravity
conditions from micro-gravity asteroids to the micro-gravity space
station may become pretty cheap since fuel-effective (SEP) or fuelless
propulsion and station keeping (solar sails) can be used.

In fact as long as no gravity wells are involved I think transport in
the inner solar system (up to 3 AU from Sun) will become fundamentally
cheaper as transport on Earth.
A solar sail for instance works fuelless, it uses the light-pressure of
our Sun for propulsion.

Having such a fleet of mothership-spacecraft infrastructure and
developed space mining and -fabricating technologies would enable to
build even more space infrastructure in space and eventually radiation
hardened spacecraft hulls for astronauts.
At this state going to Moon and Mars with humans would become an option
to me.

Before that point I would try to get more bang for the money and invest
in space based infrastructure and remote handling technology instead of
investing into a "flag planting mission" which may become (because of
it's enormously cost factor) the cause that humanity misses it's launch
window into space (as a living space) at all.

Best wishes
Frank
(rd at solar-thruster-sailor.info)
(2 weeks off-line from now)
design of a SEP-Solar-Sail-Mothership spacecraft
at http://solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig19-21d.html

UK-patent of the Solar-Sail-Launch-System
including mothership: GB 2434345
US and German applications are pending.

Conserving mass? Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an
omelet.

A space elevator would negate that issue, on any planet of
considerable mass. We are a LONG WAY from that technology, but we can
always hope. Until then, the mining we do, and the products produced
in space will rely upon resources & marketplaces planet-side.

Conversely, of the members of this group, how many here have
personally borne a child, and currently are raising infants or
toddlers?

Until women, and other child rearing humans, decide to bring up
healthy young outside of a planetary gravity-well, this argument is a
waste of vital brain activity & limited time.

Maybe AFTER a generation of occupancy, where orbital habitats of
planetoid mass or smaller have been spun up with toroidal gravity,
then just MAYBE this can be a point of discussion.

Until then, it's a moot argument.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Frank wrote:
>
> you will have a difficult task to convince most members of this
group
> (including me) that settling on a gravity well would be the optimal
way
> to conquer space.
>
> In terms of "lugging" resources;
> what would you think about a space base system which needs 90 % of
the
> fuel just to get out of it's gravity well?
>
> This is the actual state of our rocket technology. Our launchers
use up
> 90 % of their capacity to carry fuel which in a few minutes is
burned
> off just to get out of the gravity well of Earth. Is this really as
mass

On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Burgess wrote:

> Until women, and other child rearing humans, decide to bring up
> healthy young outside of a planetary gravity-well, this argument is a
> waste of vital brain activity & limited time.
>

What?!?

You ask "What?" That was my answer to someone who suggested that there
would be more humans living in the cold emptiness of the Solar orbit
between planets.

Good question, which requires a less-concise answer:

There may be 3,000 times the mass of Earth in orbit, but it's all
spread around in mushy ice balls, or worse barren iron ingots, most of
them smaller than a terrestrial basketball.

Putting all of that together into habitable homes, where humankind may
be nurtured is more than several hundred years into the future.

For those of us planning on finding those scattered resources, and
making them part of the human ecosystem will take many tens of adult
human generations.

...By best estimates of course.

I have a two-year-old currently climbing 9ft tall bookshelves behind
me. His shirt is still covered with dinner pizza.

I'm glad he's not afraid of heights, but he's also completely immune to
the word "NO!" and other safety warnings. Should he survive beyond the
age of four, I expect him to outgrow every piece of clothing within
several weeks or months of purchase, until his mid-teens.

How do you keep a toddler safe exposed to the risk of sudden
decompression space habitat, or asteroid mining will have?

How do you convince an expectant mother to bear, and nurture a child in
microgravity? [Think of the fun with runny diapers.]

How do you explain to grandma [YOUR Mother] that you intend to have a
family in microgravity, with no hope of return to Earth, without
serious medical consequences for your children & children's children?

Until we can get there, THEN make is a safe place to nurture pre-
adults, chatter indicating the vast majority of humanity living outside
of planetary surfaces to be extremely far-fetched, and a waste of
planning (beyond the speculation of science fiction, of course).

For now, isn't the focus on setting missions, or private commercial
enterprise to just get us out there? One foot before the other, each
small step adding up to the journey of a lifetime

I hope that answers your question.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Burgess wrote:
>
> > Until women, and other child rearing humans, decide to bring up
> > healthy young outside of a planetary gravity-well, this argument is
a

On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Kevin Burgess wrote:

> There may be 3,000 times the mass of Earth in orbit, but it's all
> spread around in mushy ice balls, or worse barren iron ingots, most of
> them smaller than a terrestrial basketball.
>

In other words, easily accessible and ready for use.

> Putting all of that together into habitable homes, where humankind may
> be nurtured is more than several hundred years into the future.
>

How do you arrive at that figure?

> For those of us planning on finding those scattered resources, and
> making them part of the human ecosystem will take many tens of adult
> human generations.
>
> ...By best estimates of course.
>

If you define a generation as 20 years (regardless of how long people
live -- which is already much longer than that, and is likely to get
much longer), and if you're talking about the time until there are
many thousands of such settlements, then I'd agree.

But of course it won't take that long to get started.

> How do you keep a toddler safe exposed to the risk of sudden
> decompression space habitat, or asteroid mining will have?
>

Space habitats don't have any serious risk of sudden decompression; it
would take hours or days for it to decompress to a dangerous level,
and that's plenty of time to fix the hole. Your toddler (and mine)
are in much greater danger of dying on Earth from a car wreck.

> How do you convince an expectant mother to bear, and nurture a child
> in
> microgravity? [Think of the fun with runny diapers.]
>

I don't, that's the whole point. Space colonies have whatever level
of gravity we decide is best (which could be 1.0 G).

> How do you explain to grandma [YOUR Mother] that you intend to have a
> family in microgravity, with no hope of return to Earth, without
> serious medical consequences for your children & children's children?
>

See above. You're imagining a nonsensical situation, and then arguing
against it.

> Until we can get there, THEN make is a safe place to nurture pre-
> adults, chatter indicating the vast majority of humanity living
> outside
> of planetary surfaces to be extremely far-fetched, and a waste of
> planning (beyond the speculation of science fiction, of course).
>

Ah, so you propose we should do it first, and THEN discuss the
details? Interesting. Can you think of any precedents for that order
of developing new things?

> For now, isn't the focus on setting missions, or private commercial
> enterprise to just get us out there?
>

That's certainly *a* focus, but this mailing list is "Space Settlers"
@yahoogroups.com. The point of this group is to discuss space
settlement. If that's not of interest to you, then simply send mail

Best,
- Joe

*SIGH* OK, ya roped me in on that one!

My bad, now I got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.

Answers below:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Kevin Burgess wrote:
>
> > There may be 3,000 times the mass of Earth in orbit, but it's all
> > spread around in mushy ice balls, or worse barren iron ingots,
> > most of them smaller than a terrestrial basketball.
>
> In other words, easily accessible and ready for use.
>
> > Putting all of that together into habitable homes, where
> > humankind maybe nurtured is more than several hundred years
> > into the future.
>
> How do you arrive at that figure?

I extrapolated from the time of first Lunar landing, to the first
planned long-term occupation. Note that I didn't say settlement.

Building an O'Niel habitat out of dust or planetoids will take much
longer, based upon history. Sadly.

The technology & funds exist, and I'd be the first in line to wrench
& load launch vehicles, if the powers that be would back our effort.*

> > For those of us planning on finding those scattered resources, and
> > making them part of the human ecosystem will take many tens of
> > adult human generations.
> >
> > ...By best estimates of course.
> >
> If you define a generation as 20 years (regardless of how long
> people live -- which is already much longer than that,
> and is likely to get much longer),
> and if you're talking about the time until there are
> many thousands of such settlements, then I'd agree.
>
> But of course it won't take that long to get started.

I agree with that statement, in fact it SHOULD & COULD have been
started long ago, but that's another blog.

> > How do you keep a toddler safe exposed to the risk of sudden
> > decompression space habitat, or asteroid mining will have?
>
> Space habitats don't have any serious risk of sudden decompression;
> it would take hours or days for it to decompress
> to a dangerous level, and that's plenty of time to fix the hole.
> Your toddler (and mine)
> are in much greater danger of dying on Earth from a car wreck.

...Or war, general pollution & overcrowding... However, with the
conventional parents resources daily child rearing is easier in a
place where life is less fragile.

If not decompression, then carbon oxide poisoning, extreme heat or
cold, not to mention the bone-debilitating nature of microgravity.

I WAS too-specific.

> > How do you convince an expectant mother to bear,
> > and nurture a child in microgravity?
> > [Think of the fun with runny diapers.]
> >
> I don't, that's the whole point. Space colonies have whatever
> level of gravity we decide is best (which could be 1.0 G).

As a scientist might say prove the theory, and as an engineer (and
Parent) I insist on proof in performance before trust.

As a Parent, I can tell my toddler NOT to turn off daddys' Server
farm, or turn on mommys' hot oven, and that crawling under the SUV is
only for accredited auto mechanics...

> > How do you explain to grandma [YOUR Mother] that you intend to
have a
> > family in microgravity, with no hope of return to Earth, without
> > serious medical consequences for your children & children's
children?
> >
> See above. You're imagining a nonsensical situation, and then
arguing
> against it.

LOL, if you call toddlers 'non-sensicle' then I would have to agree,
however that's a very real argument against overwhelming population
migration to microgravity environments, exposed to the hardships of
space.

Perhaps I am too sensitive, currently rasing my second generation of
children. It is much harder now than I remember from 29,23, & 18
years ago...
=8-P

REALITY CHECK:
The strawman argument was the suggestion that human diaspora will
resolve in more people living outside of gravity wells than
planetside.

No matter how you slice it, that just ain't gonna happen.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is really far-removed from children, to
have forgotten these practical nightmares enough to casually suggest
exposing pre-teens to the rigors of surviving space.

Not that that's important now, but it is a VERY long way from
happening in the near future. The original post did suggest it is
indeed a long way off.

> > Until we can get there, THEN make is a safe place to nurture pre-
> > adults, chatter indicating the vast majority of humanity living
> > outside
> > of planetary surfaces to be extremely far-fetched, and a waste of
> > planning (beyond the speculation of science fiction, of course).
> >
> Ah, so you propose we should do it first, and THEN discuss the
> details? Interesting. Can you think of any precedents for
> that order of developing new things?

The last 30 years of NASA ('safety first' before science; robots
before personnel), but that is a bad example.

I'm saying we need to get working adults out there, establishing a
beachhead safe enough, before trying to 'child proof' the outlets.

The general public (who pay the taxes used by NASA, and purchase the
commercial products produced by corporations who will enter space
enterprise) DO NOT CARE ABOUT ROBOTS IN SPACE.

Like us, they DO care about boots & flags!

That is THE Number 1 reason NASA has lost so much support over the
years. Their budget this year stands at a deeply depressing
17Billion. It is 1B less than LAST year, and 3B less than in 1969,
the year of Apollo 11! Since oil was 30 CENTS a barrel back then, if
adjusted for inflation, NASA has had a decline of over a FACTOR OF
TEN!!!)

Put boots & flags back on the Moon, on to Mars, or even L5, and you
will have the hearts & wallets of the public support we so
desperately need.

> > For now, isn't the focus on setting missions, or private
> > commercial enterprise to just get us out there?
> >
> That's certainly *a* focus, but this mailing list is
> "Space Settlers" @yahoogroups.com.
> The point of this group is to discuss space settlement.

Ah, Settlement of solely open 'Space', and not just any
extraterrestrial location?

My strong reaction was merely against the outright dismissal of
Martian exploration & settlement. Again; If I'm guilty of
overreacting, please accept my apologies.

I'm doing penance by forcing myself to re-read my original copies of
Stine's _Third_Industrial_Revolution_ and Heppenheimers'
_Colonies_in_Space_ .

I remain very interested in extraterrestrial settlement (really), but
being new had not realized how much science fiction was being written
here (Good job TerrierKeeper!).

I apologize for being so abrupt.

There is always a place for good storytelling, and speculation
certainly promotes our collective goals of the settlement of new
frontiers in space.

The sometimes fine line between scientific speculation, and outright
fantasy is one I prefer not to cross. Passing the mid-century mark, I
find my time more precious every day.

After a very long day of working on writing, or reading technical
manuals & white papers, it is always relaxing to me to curl up with
good 'hard' science fiction.

Getting back to the cause of this edition of War & Peace:

Someone here already said it better than me; "...I see it as stupid
to ignore an entire planet."

Reasonable planning, even speculation, should not ignore the impact
of Earth, Mars, or other planets upon the expansion of Second Stage
civilization, or diaspora of humanity.

See above comments on child-rearing.

Besides: We are way to far from my goal of retiring to a golf-
community on Mars (easier to find those little white balls, and they
don't get lost in Lunar regolith-traps, or go orbital like on
Ceres...).

Being a practical engineer, I am looking for way to actually fly some
of these birds, and get out there.

Like Mr Reed here, I have practical plans for Space Based Solar Power
Satellites (SBSPS), which will require settlers like the members of
this group to occupy & maintain.

We do have similar goals, even if yours is microgravity Olympics, or
a window seat looking out over the entire Earth, and wide open solar
system (L5 or O'Niel colonies).

On Dec 13, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Kevin Burgess wrote:

> > > Putting all of that together into habitable homes, where
> > > humankind maybe nurtured is more than several hundred years
> > > into the future.
> >
> > How do you arrive at that figure?
>
> I extrapolated from the time of first Lunar landing, to the first
> planned long-term occupation. Note that I didn't say settlement.
>

OK, that's an interesting approach. I'm a bit skeptical of it though
-- there are many reasons to think that Apollo was an aberration,
rushed quite ahead of its "natural" time by the particular
circumstances of the day.

Of course such things do happen, but rather than a simple
extrapolation, a better comparison might be the European colonization
of the Americas. Columbus's expedition was in 1492; first major
permanent settlements were in the late 1500s; in the 16th century,
some 240,000 Europeans entered American ports. So far, our space
record seems pretty comparable to me.

> Building an O'Niel habitat out of dust or planetoids will take much
> longer, based upon history. Sadly.
>

Longer than the first lunar base? Agreed (and this is fairly obvious,
since a robust cislunar economy is pretty much required in order to
take on a project that size).

> The technology & funds exist, and I'd be the first in line to wrench
> & load launch vehicles, if the powers that be would back our effort.*
>

Well, I think suborbital tourism, orbital tourism, lunar base, lunar
tourism, cislunar fuel depots, and exploitation of NEAs, all need to
come first. But we're making progress.
> > Your toddler (and mine)
> > are in much greater danger of dying on Earth from a car wreck.
>
> ...Or war, general pollution & overcrowding... However, with the
> conventional parents resources daily child rearing is easier in a
> place where life is less fragile.
>

I'm still not convinced there's any significant difference there.

> If not decompression, then carbon oxide poisoning, extreme heat or
> cold, not to mention the bone-debilitating nature of microgravity.
>

It's good not to mention that, since it doesn't apply. Nor would
extreme heat or cold. Atmospheric imbalance or contamination IS a
greater risk in a space habitat than on Earth, that's true... unless
you have equipment in place to monitor such things, and people whose
job it is to make sure the air is always good, as would certainly be
the case.

> > I don't, that's the whole point. Space colonies have whatever
> > level of gravity we decide is best (which could be 1.0 G).
>
> As a scientist might say prove the theory, and as an engineer (and
> Parent) I insist on proof in performance before trust.
>

What is it you're arguing? That our physics of angular momentum and
acceleration are wrong? These are laws of motion that HAVE been
proven, zillions of times. Any child can spin a yo-yo around their
head and observe the effect. Please propose a way in which this might
NOT work to produce 1.0 G exactly as the equations say it should.

> As a Parent, I can tell my toddler NOT to turn off daddys' Server
> farm, or turn on mommys' hot oven, and that crawling under the SUV is
> only for accredited auto mechanics...
>

Ah yes, good point. In addition, pizza is tastier with pepperoni, and
non sequiturs look best in purple.

> > See above. You're imagining a nonsensical situation, and then
> > arguing against it.
>
> LOL, if you call toddlers 'non-sensicle' then I would have to agree,
> however that's a very real argument against overwhelming population
> migration to microgravity environments, exposed to the hardships of
> space.
>

Perhaps I was too subtle. The nonsensical situation is space
colonists living in microgravity. They won't. They'll live in
whatever level of gravity we deem is most healthy and beneficial --
classic studies have always assumed 1.0 G, though I suspect we'll
discover that 0.8 or even 0.5 G is perfectly fine even for growing
children. (That's just speculation, of course; we don't have that data
yet -- but we DO have plenty of data on living in 1.0 G, and so worst
case, that's what we'll do.)

> REALITY CHECK:
> The strawman argument was the suggestion that human diaspora will
> resolve in more people living outside of gravity wells than
> planetside.
>

No, the strawman argument was that people will live in MICROGRAVITY.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much. Have you not actually looked at any of
the space colony designs? Do you really think that anyone (apart from
Marshall Savage, perhaps) is proposing that people might live in
microgravity in large numbers?

I have to ask because you seem to be equating "living in
space" (outside a gravity well) to "living in microgravity" -- and
that's just silly. An orbital colony is a large rotating structure;
you live on the inside, and feel an acceleration towards the outside,
which can be equivalent to whatever level of gravity you desire.

> No matter how you slice it, that just ain't gonna happen.
>

That many people living in microgravity, sure (unless of course
technology provides some way to avoid all the biological ill effects,
but let's ignore that possibility for now).

But more people living outside of gravity wells than planetside? Yes,
of course that IS going to happen. It's inevitable; the vast majority
of the solar system's accessible resources are not on planets, and
economics strongly favor not living at the bottom of a well anyway.
The only way I can imagine this not being the case within a few
hundred years, is if civilization collapses somehow.

> Anyone suggesting otherwise is really far-removed from children, to
> have forgotten these practical nightmares enough to casually suggest
> exposing pre-teens to the rigors of surviving space.
>

You seem to think you're pretty special with regard to the parental
perspective. But I don't think that's founded either. I'm a father
of two. My oldest wants to be a NASA engineer when he grows up and
design space colonies some day. I couldn't be prouder (even though by
the time he's grown up, NASA probably won't be where the real action
is... and he'll probably change his mind a dozen times before he gets
that far, but that's fine too).

> I'm saying we need to get working adults out there, establishing a
> beachhead safe enough, before trying to 'child proof' the outlets.
>

OK, sure. This seems obvious. So?

> The general public (who pay the taxes used by NASA, and purchase the
> commercial products produced by corporations who will enter space
> enterprise) DO NOT CARE ABOUT ROBOTS IN SPACE.
>

NASA isn't purchasing the space tourism tickets, and I think that's
the next big economic driver for space development. However, I'm not
sure what your point is here. Weren't we talking about living on Mars
vs. living in orbit?

> Like us, they DO care about boots & flags!
>

Please speak for yourself -- I don't care much about boots & flags. I
*do* care about infrastructure and economic development. Stunt
missions are relevant only insofar as they prove the possibility of
something that has never been done before. Boots on a NEA would be
very relevant, for example, since those are going to be important
sources of resources in the near future. But probably even more
relevant, near-term, would be some communications & positioning towers/
satellites on/around the Moon and the Lagrange points.

> Put boots & flags back on the Moon, on to Mars, or even L5, and you
> will have the hearts & wallets of the public support we so
> desperately need.
>

I don't know about that -- the general public had already lost
interest after half a dozen Apollo missions. Missions 17-20 were
pretty much ready to fly, and got cancelled for lack of funds and
interest. This despite each mission not only adding boots and flags,
but pushing the envelope in various ways.

The real problem, IMHO, is that somebody chose "science" as the overt
reason for the space program. That wasn't the real reason, of course,
but I guess they didn't think they could sell "national prestige."
But you can't sell "science" either -- Johnny Public just doesn't care
that much. Instead, they should have made it about opening a
frontier, and working as hard and fast as possible to get to the point
where Johnny Public could go there himself, rather than just watching
a handful of government employees have all the fun.

That's what's been missing from our space program since its inception,
and so great is the disappointment and resentment, that a surprising
number of children of the '60s (who also happened to have become
wealthy in unrelated ways) are now taking matters into their own hands
(SpaceX, Blue Horizons, Bigelow Aerospace, Virgin Galactic, etc.).
And they're making no bones about it: they're not going for the
science. They're going to bust open the solar system for everybody.

> > That's certainly *a* focus, but this mailing list is
> > "Space Settlers" @yahoogroups.com.
> > The point of this group is to discuss space settlement.
>
> Ah, Settlement of solely open 'Space', and not just any
> extraterrestrial location?
>

No, any extraterrestrial location is fair game. You seemed to be
saying that we shouldn't discuss space settlements because they're too
far in the future. I was arguing that such discussion is the point of
this group.

> My strong reaction was merely against the outright dismissal of
> Martian exploration & settlement. Again; If I'm guilty of
> overreacting, please accept my apologies.
>

If I was dismissive, then I'm the one who should be apologizing. Some
of us here have strong feelings on the matter, and tend to be a little
terse, just because we've been over it so many times already. But
that's no excuse -- everyone who comes to it fresh deserves a careful
hearing (and a patient explanation as to why a planetary surface may
not be the best place to build a city).

> There is always a place for good storytelling, and speculation
> certainly promotes our collective goals of the settlement of new
> frontiers in space.
>

True. Our own Mike Combs has written some fine work along those lines.

> The sometimes fine line between scientific speculation, and outright
> fantasy is one I prefer not to cross. Passing the mid-century mark, I
> find my time more precious every day.
>

I can certainly respect that.

> Getting back to the cause of this edition of War & Peace:
>
> Someone here already said it better than me; "...I see it as stupid
> to ignore an entire planet."
>
> Reasonable planning, even speculation, should not ignore the impact
> of Earth, Mars, or other planets upon the expansion of Second Stage
> civilization, or diaspora of humanity.
>

Of course not. I don't think anyone's ignoring it. Mars will
certainly be a popular tourist destination, and its two moons will
probably be important sources of resources. In addition, its
position, halfway between Earth and the Belt (which are likely to be
the two most thriving and thickly populated parts of the solar system
for centuries to come), will make it an important way station (when
things happen to be lined up right at the time you want to go, of
course).

However, just because it's a nice place to visit, doesn't mean you'd
want to live there.

> See above comments on child-rearing.
>

I saw them, but I still don't see their relevance, except perhaps in
the opposite direction. Martian gravity is 0.38 G. We don't have the
data, but it's entirely possible that that's not enough gravity for
normal development (or possibly, even for the long-term health of
fully-grown adults). And if that's the case, there isn't much you can
do about it there. But in orbit, you can build a comfy safe space
colony with 1.0 G or any other level of gravity you require.

> Besides: We are way to far from my goal of retiring to a golf-
> community on Mars (easier to find those little white balls, and they
> don't get lost in Lunar regolith-traps, or go orbital like on
> Ceres...).
>

Yeah, but you're still going to hit your drives over 700 m, which
means a VERY long walk after the ball. Assuming you can swing
decently in a space suit, of course... or that you've build an
extremely large enclosed space. I fear that you might need to take up
a less spacious sport.

> Being a practical engineer, I am looking for way to actually fly some
> of these birds, and get out there.
>

OK, we're all certainly agreed on that. I do think it helps to have
some idea where you're going when you're trying to plot a course,
though. I outlined above what I think the necessary steps are before
large-scale space settlements. Once we get to the point of orbital
and lunar hotels, the next step is a mini-space-colony that would be a
Disney-esque vacation spot. In fact, I've roughed out a design for
just such a thing, with multiple decks sporting lunar, Martian, and
0.8 G levels of gravity (plus additional agricultural decks in
between). The lunar and Martian decks would be done up in a
simulation of the lunar and Martian environments, except with
atmosphere, so you could see and feel what it would be like to cavort
on the Moon or Mars. And of course there would be zero-G areas too
(for playing in, not living in).

Anyway, something like that is what I see as the first real "proof of
concept" for a space colony -- after that, it's just a matter of
scaling it up, while continuing to find ways to make them pay.

> Like Mr Reed here, I have practical plans for Space Based Solar Power
> Satellites (SBSPS), which will require settlers like the members of
> this group to occupy & maintain.
>

Sounds good.

> We do have similar goals, even if yours is microgravity Olympics, or
> a window seat looking out over the entire Earth, and wide open solar
> system (L5 or O'Niel colonies).
>

Fair enough (except perhaps for the microgravity part!).

Best,
- Joe

Since the subject of sports came up:

Yes, the whole idea of "they're all living in microgravity" needs
to be dropped. Nobody is proposing that. Well, OK, maybe Marshall
Savage, but nobody else. And even he admits that habitats CAN be
spun up to give the inhabitants weight.

Many of the supposed dangers of an orbital would apply equally to any
habitat on the surface of Mars, or the Moon. I can't think of any
reason a leak in the pressure shell wouldn't be as deadly on Mars as
it would be in orbit. I don't see why your Mars dome or underground
chamber is somehow immune to CO2 buildups that you're assuming would
be a constant danger to those in orbit. The need to control the
temperature doesn't vanish because you are on a planet.

Of course there will be adults checking out large, rotating living-
places before children are expected to live there. Ideally, that's
what those highly-trained individuals known as "astronauts" would be
doing: making it safe enough for ordinary adults, who make it safe
enough for children. I truly believe that most of what caused the
public to lose interest in NASA manned space flight was the dawning
realization that what the bold and courageous astronauts are doing
may be bold and courageous, but it isn't getting the rest of us in
space. Let it be clear that NASA is opening the High Frontier for
THE REST OF US, and watch public support grow.

Joe, to keep my answer short here, for the general audience, I will
concede the concept of G-spin, if you will allow that very few
sailors ply their trade without getting wet. Frequently.

That's the cautionary suggestion that microgravity will affect those
who are surrounded by it.

I did not even mention solar radiation storm flares, another
solvable, but occasional issue in open space.

I did not mean to suggest you couldn't be a parent, but ask any
ground pounder grandma, and you will get a firm NO to pre-teens in
space.

As for microgravity in general, YES there is such thing as toroidal
force, which can simulate gravity forces. It is not the same thing,
and sadly there will be many who cannot tolerate spin for long.

In an unknown percentage of the general population it causes clinical
vertigo (not fear, but actual spin-induced physical nausea), which
cannot be overcome.

By proof, I simply meant that we have not yet erected that Ferris
Wheel in the sky yet. Even a small one, with proof in performance,
and quality assured safety could be enough to sway me on `believing'
it works.

The `Mission to Mars' had a nifty version, and the larger
Jupiter `Discovery One' craft of `2001 a Space Odyssey' exercise
cylinder would each satisfy my inner-Missouri (the Show Me State).

As far as larger populations in space? Maybe, IF they eventually let
us build the O'Neil cities, and interstellar starships. By they, I
mean the mysterious governments or venture capitalists, and the
public in general.

I can ignore Luddites with the best of them, unless they are better
armed than I am

Joe & everyone here: to highlight The Real Point:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
> The real problem, IMHO, is that somebody chose "science"
> as the overt reason for the space program.
> That wasn't the real reason, of course,
> but I guess they didn't think they could sell
> "national prestige."

The `REAL' reason for the Apollo program? A: To prove that our inter-
continental ballistic missiles could accurately land a payload
ANYWHERE in the Solar System. Or at least target anywhere on the
surfaces of Earth and Moon. And incidentally B: To show them we could
(and the Russians could NOT).

I had a long chat with Jesco Von Puttkamer about that issue, and
while he said his boss Verner Von Braun & Kennedy `believed' in the
science, the entire aerospace industry knew otherwise.

John Glenn admitted as much to me too. His take was "why do you
think they sent a Marine up there first? Because we were test pilots?
No, it was because we were MILITARY pilots; and Marines, Sailors &
Soldiers FIRST." Hooyah SENIRAM!

It took another decade to bring the Russians to the table, but the
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) were a direct result of the
Space program (manned, or otherwise), just as our own Gemini & Apollo
space race was a direct response to the Sputnik suggesting pretty
much the same threat in 1959.

How's that for a spin cycle? Is anyone else getting dizzy?