True, the timelines would still be huge, 100 million years plus, but if we're already expanding star system by star system then we can just keep going star to star to the next galaxy.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:
I'll go along with that. Personally, I expect that Mankind will try every option open to him, both machine and biological. Different strokes for different folks has always held true for Man, and probably always will. Some will choose to go the way of staying 'pure' in the Human biological sense, while others will choose to augment via nanotech or go all mech, and it will all work out as a cultural diversity that will enrich all of Humanity. In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space, be they Lunar, O'neil toruses, rotating tin cans or blow-up habitats based on Bigelows' Genesis modules. This is the PRIMARY need that must be addressed NOW, or it won't do us any good to have life extension by whatever means on an overcrowded energy and resource starved planet. Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming up with here. Any constructive suggestions?
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 9:23 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
> If in fact those requirements are reduced or go away, then our
> engineering options will expand. But until that happens, we should
> assume and plan for pure 20th-century human colonists. We certainly CAN
> build colonies for such folk, and that's a very important point. Space
> colonization can be done independent of any revolutionary medical or
> biotech. So, when making our case, we don't need to (and should not)
> bring in any more assumptions the listener may question.
That's as well-reasoned an argument as I've seen on this issue. We should be conservative in our assumptions, even while being ready to seize new opportunities as they present themselves.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Strout
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 9:18 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
Combs, Mike wrote:
> > Post-terrestrial mean post-human.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. The plasma portion of our blood is very much like
> ocean water. Once biochemistry evolved to function in seawater, moving
> up to the land meant either starting all over again from scratch, or
> just carrying a bit of the ocean along with us.
>
> Maybe space colonization will be like that.
Could be.
I'm sure it's become apparent by now that I fully expect mind uploading
to happen sometime in this century -- quite possibly before we have any
large O'Neill-style space colonies.
But the future is always difficult to see, and I think it prudent to
pursue many different paths of advancement. That means, in our case,
that we should continue to pursue O'Neill style colonies on the
assumption that our biological requirements will be pretty much exactly
what they are now.
If in fact those requirements are reduced or go away, then our
engineering options will expand. But until that happens, we should
assume and plan for pure 20th-century human colonists. We certainly CAN
build colonies for such folk, and that's a very important point. Space
colonization can be done independent of any revolutionary medical or
biotech. So, when making our case, we don't need to (and should not)
bring in any more assumptions the listener may question.
Indeed, if we don't develop radical biotech, we need space colonization
all the more -- it's the only long-term way to ensure survival of humanity.
That's why I'm here, and why I support space colonization in the O'Neill
style, even though I suspect it may prove mostly moot in the long term.
Best,
- Joe
From: Victor Smith
"In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space ... Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming up with here. Any constructive suggestions?"
Can we generally agree that the economic basis for a buildup over the next two decades would come from either solar power beamed to Earth or valuable materials mined from asteroids and returned to earth? Then the question is which path are we better suited technologically to pursue. I suspect, it is solar power.
Following this logic, the raw materials can come from Earth / Moon / Asteroids. As installations get larger, earth launch fails to be practical and we transition to mined materials. Technology will drive sourcing.
Having a home is the biggest driver for human beings; It is also practically
the only saving for many people. Why not sell homes in O'Neil type habitats.
For this to happen, the idea of living in a habitat has to be made popular.
should not be a big problem.
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 29 June 2010 07:02, Matt Gallimore wrote:
From: sraj
"Why not sell homes in O'Neil type habitats."
Another issue is project timeline and financing. A company pursuing just the hab construction as a real estate venture would run out of money long before construction is finished. I don't know of any company on earth that could finance much beyond the construction shack. Without other economic activity alongside this, (SPS or other product / service) is therejustification for the vast, vast sums of money needed for building the habs as a stand-alone venture?
I still see tourism playing a big part in the next 50 years. How many tourists have already been to the ISS? And that's with some sizeable barriers in the way--NASA won't take them, so they have to fly to Baikonur and undergo multiple training sessions and physical exams, and probably get shaken down by Russian mobsters working for oligarchs. Turn somebody like Branson loose on it, and amenities will appear, barriers will go away, demand will increase, prices can come down a little. Then Bigelow launches its first hotel, and once it turns a profit they launch a baton structure with two habs connected by a 100 m walkway to simulate partial gravity, and pretty soon somebody's mining O2, H2O and N3 to sell to Bigelow. The first SPS workers will be living in the next hab over from the concierge and orbital chef.
From: happygallimore@...
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:15:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
From: sraj
"Why not sell homes in O'Neil type habitats."
With current economics for space access, few people could afford the accomodations.
Another issue is project timeline and financing. A company pursuing just the hab construction as a real estate venture would run out of money long before construction is finished. I don't know of any company on earth that could finance much beyond the construction shack. Without other economic activity alongside this, (SPS or other product / service) is there justification for the vast, vast sums of money needed for building the habs as a stand-alone venture?
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
Absolutely. A few months back, it seemed like we were actually going to get an initiative going. Seemed like everyone, including the usaf were backing it as part of the O'bama transition. Then, once his administration actually began I've heard didly. This is off the shelf tech that could be done right now. Assembly of segments suitably sized for launch can be taken into leo and crews of assemblers could be based out of either an added module to ISS or possibly one of the full size Genesis 2 modules if they're close enough to ready for spacing. Once the SPS units are assembled they can be moved out to GEO by small maneuvering thrusters. Ground receiving antenna grids could be easily put into place in rural areas unlikely to interfere with airline guidance radars, etc. So what's the deal, it's a win/win all the way around. Where did the initiative disappear to?
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:32 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars
From: Victor Smith
"In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space ... Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming up with here. Any constructive suggestions?"
The approach must hinge on economic return to earth initially, or funding will be from governments and always subject to polical bugetary whims. There may be three primary economic returns: scientific, physical resources, and energy. It may take a while for research performed in space to pay for the billions it would take for the first permanant beachead. Some might say asteroids will provide all the platinum and gold for we'd ever want on earth. However, the only long term non-distorting commodity might be energy. Oneal hit on a very good idea with SPS.
Can we generally agree that the economic basis for a buildup over the next two decades would come from either solar power beamed to Earth or valuable materials mined from asteroids and returned to earth? Then the question is which path are we better suited technologically to pursue. I suspect, it is solar power.
Following this logic, the raw materials can come from Earth / Moon / Asteroids. As installations get larger, earth launch fails to be practical and we transition to mined materials. Technology will drive sourcing.
>
> Can we generally agree that the economic basis for a buildup over the next two decades would come from either solar power beamed to Earth
----------
geothermal is still cheaper and more accessible and even greener and by far higher in yield. I will design your solar sat tho if thats the next thing up, but , no, i don't agree. space solar is exorbitantly expensive and silly when compared to geothermal. Its useful to beam power to places out in space tho...not back to earth.
uhhhmmm....errrr...
> "Following this logic, the raw materials can come from Earth / Moon / Asteroids. As installations get larger, earth launch fails to be practical and we transition to mined materials. Technology will drive sourcing.
>
> From this, the most constructive suggestion is that we start building smaller SPS systems and mature the beaming technology so it can be scaled up. From that point we can get the economic justification for human habitat construction."
Uhm...
you know the real best use for such solar is to beam it out into the outer solar system or to smaller vehicles in route.
The whole solar thing is a total sideshow as far as i am concerned but
i will still draw solar sats if thats what you are ready to work on.
Matt Gallimore wrote:
> next two decades would come from either solar power beamed to Earth or
> valuable materials mined from asteroids and returned to earth?
No. These are reasonable possibilities, but I think tourism can't be
discounted.
Best,
- Joe
I think it will go in this order:
2. certain highly expensive items manufactured in space.
3. tourism.
4. (eventually) metals and rare earth elements mined from asteroids,
or more likely captured metal-rich micro-sized asteroids sent down
to earth.
I am *not* an advocate of SPS.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Matt Gallimore wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:28 PM, William wrote:
(...)
> 4. (eventually) metals and rare earth elements mined from asteroids,
> or more likely captured metal-rich micro-sized asteroids sent down
> to earth.
(...)
probes on asteroids and IIRC we can detect asteroids a few meters
across - aka "meteoroids". Maybe we can land a probe in a meteoroid
and gently nudge it into a path that, many years later (and probably
with gravitational assists and the like) will make it hit Earth. Of
course, I don't know if the ammount of platinum in a single meteoroid
would justify the costs of such operation...
I am curious, why not ?
On Wed Jun 30 1:28 , 'William' sent:
I to am not a fan of it either. Not because of the tech, or costs. I
feel the rank and file of my country (USA) will not see the usefulness
of SPS and resort to microwave myths to kill any project.
On 6/30/2010 2:27 AM, bmaillists@... wrote:
Frankly, If I was setting up sps I wouldn't even consider the US as a
launch customer, nor even one of the first 5.
There would be too many competitors and too many hassles.
China, India, Indonesia and Japan on the other hand, would probably
welcome with open arms the company that successfully demonstrates an sps.
The best part is that the ground station is the low tech part, so you
wouldn't have to worry about any embargo nonsense as long as you launch
from an acceptable location.
Timothy Riess wrote:
shouldn't the focus of space enthusiasts right now be on lowering coats of
launch and on creating livable, self sufficient habitats in space, that grow
their own food for example?
Sent from my iPhone
I to am not a fan of it either. Not because of the tech, or costs. I
feel the rank and file of my country (USA) will not see the usefulness
of SPS and resort to microwave myths to kill any project.
Tim
On 6/30/2010 2:27 AM, bmaillists@... wrote:
It should be, but, the 'economics' situation behind capitalism says that
there'll be no investment (aside from enthusiasts like us) in space unless
it can be shown that the investors can make a good return on their
investment. SPS is one of the shorter term avenues to ROI because it's
mostly off the shelf tech and ther's always a market for energy. Also, the
construction of a halo of SPSs would necessitate getting a lot of people
into space and the construction of at least temporary habs for them during
the assembly and placement process. Part of the plusses enumerated to
O'bama in the proposal to his transition team was the fact that thousands
would be (newly) employed in both the space end and the ground receiving
station construction.
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon
and Mars
I don't like the idea of beaming gigawatts or terawatts of microwaves
onto the earth. I know that according to SPS advocates it's supposed
to be safe and that it's only 1/4 solar intensity (for a sunny day).
Uh-uh.
Earth from cell phone towers and other telecommunications. They are
affecting migrating birds. I care about this..for those who don't:
some think they are the reason for the collapsing honey bee colonies,
who are needed for about a third of all our agricultural crops.
Aside from that, SPS just aren't needed. Ground-based solar could
supply *all* the energy needs of the world, not just electricity as
would be the case with SPS. It would require an area of solar
collectors about the size of Nevada. These would be spread all over
the world: the sahara desert, the kalihari, the australian outback,
the american southwest and great plains states. The energy collected
would be stored either in batteries or as some kind of clean fuel
(such as hydrogen).
This would have the advantage of being less centralized and providing
more commercial competition than either the setup we have now or the
*highly* centralized power sources that SPS would represent.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "bmaillists@..." wrote:
William wrote:
> onto the earth. I know that according to SPS advocates it's supposed
> to be safe and that it's only 1/4 solar intensity (for a sunny day).
> Uh-uh.
What does "uh-uh" mean? Engineers have done the math. Can you point to
a mistake?
> We are *already* having plenty of problems with microwaves here on
> Earth from cell phone towers and other telecommunications.
Those broadcast widely. We're talking about a focused beam.
> They are
> affecting migrating birds. I care about this..for those who don't:
> some think they are the reason for the collapsing honey bee colonies,
> who are needed for about a third of all our agricultural crops.
Those who think that are wrong; the bees are suffering a 1-2 punch from
an infectious fungus and a virus. (As it happens, I just read about
this in one of my science mags the other day.)
I do care about migrating birds, but I haven't heard of the effects you
mention. Reference?
> Aside from that, SPS just aren't needed. Ground-based solar could
> supply *all* the energy needs of the world, not just electricity as
> would be the case with SPS.
That's silly. Ground-based solar produces electricity too. Neither
directly produces gasoline or natural gas, but both could be used to
produce such fuels if necessary.
And ground-based solar can't supply our energy needs at night or when
it's cloudy, without solving some major problems in energy storage. Nor
can it supply it to many parts of the world, without solving major
problems in long-distance transmission.
SPS has its own engineering problems, but glossing over the problems of
ground-based solar isn't fair.
> This would have the advantage of being less centralized and providing
> more commercial competition than either the setup we have now or the
> *highly* centralized power sources that SPS would represent.
SPS isn't centralized. If used on a large scale, there would be many
hundreds of them, each delivering power locally to an area.
Best,
- Joe
Thank you Joe!
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 11:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon
and Mars