I very much agree that cheap access to LEO is the first issue that needs to be addressed if we ever want to seriously expand into space. Unfortunately, except for the work of SpaceX and the slowly increasing privatization of space access, I'm not sure of any other avenues to getting things any cheaper.

Space Elevators, single stage reuseable rockets, etc. all sound interesting but no one is even remotely close to getting those things done. So I prefer to deal with what we have.

Brooks

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "csmyth3025" wrote:

I think we need to break the CATS (cheap access to space) question down into two pieces: cheap access to space for humans, and cheap access for stuff; and as a side-question of the latter, cheap access for stuff that can do the work of humans. CATS for humans won't get any cheaper in energy and materials unless people get substantially lighter (not just 10 pounds around the middle).

BUT--to the extent that we can send bots, and even nanobots, up to harvest H2O, O2, regolith and steel, put it into place for us and even mold it into shapes that we will need, where we need it, and to the extent that these bots can explore and do experiments on stuff up there, we can substantially reduce cost to orbit for humankind. Mars rovers, orbital imaging, observatories such as the Hubble, these are already doing things that 30 years ago were the province of humans. We just haven't celebrated these as big leaps forward for robotics, because by the time they came around they didn't seem all that innovative. We'll still be arguing about when CATS will ever occur 100 years from now when robotic mining and manufacturing craft have built us cozy, shielded and well-supplied habs and cut the cost of putting humans in space in half, because by then we won't need to take long-term spacecraft or months of supplies up there with us out of the gravity well. They'll be waiting for us. CATS for human bodies will be expensive until we sink vast amounts into new infrastructure such as rotavators, space elevators or something else inconceivable to us today. But by the time we're ready to make that investment, our bots will have given us a "there" to go to.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
From: bhn1700@...
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:58:36 +0000
Subject: [spacesettlers] Cheap access to LEO

I very much agree that cheap access to LEO is the first issue that needs to be addressed if we ever want to seriously expand into space. Unfortunately, except for the work of SpaceX and the slowly increasing privatization of space access, I'm not sure of any other avenues to getting things any cheaper.

Space Elevators, single stage reuseable rockets, etc. all sound interesting but no one is even remotely close to getting those things done. So I prefer to deal with what we have.

Brooks

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "csmyth3025" wrote:

I agree, with the caveat that I think the cost of putting people into
space can be broght down substantially. Some of the developments taking
place today - commercialization, single-stage-to-orbit (such as the
British/ESA work on the Skylon), and the work of Scaled Composites, Xcor
Aerospace, Bigelow and others makes me optomisitc that NASA (and the
Russians) may eventually have to relinquish their (expensive) monopoly
on putting people into space.

Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Brad Walsh wrote:
>
> I think we need to break the CATS (cheap access to space) question
down into two pieces: cheap access to space for humans, and cheap access
for stuff; and as a side-question of the latter, cheap access for stuff
that can do the work of humans. CATS for humans won't get any cheaper in
energy and materials unless people get substantially lighter (not just
10 pounds around the middle)....