Hey there group members,

Been away for about three months, not physically, just from geting in on the group activity. And it appears that there has been some redundancy going on with the Postings/E-mails that have been appearing since November. Too many 'replies' and attachments of previous data.

Gotta stay fresh with the input and refrain from beating those dead horse topics. At least that's what appears to my reading of the few memebers we have who are active.

Anyway, to get some distance from Alpha, and the problems with colonizations and comparative budgets from space programs (private or governmental), let's expand our observations and submit some new opinion and theory soon.

The subjectmatter smacks of some traits the other wesites I'VE edxperienced before here. References to base operations some members are trying to promote and repreat retoric that has been around for a half dozen years.

(I told you that I was trouble, only to the extent of what leads a group into complaceny and boredom. If not themselves as they may not realize what is being repeated, but to members trying to come into the group in the beginning.)

As too, the conversation is getting beyond the stated mission of the website. Maybe close-Earth colonies are boring and have their limitation on the validity as concepts or realistic approaches to man's expansion into space.

But that is what we relaly have to deal with in our more immediate generations to come. Especially given the timescales we here have creted with our own history that bogs us down.

Having ISS progams is still at least a foothold on the dream. Space tourism can take up the slack and provide the 'down to Earth' approach for more general public orientations and provision for the common man to experience such adventure. At least it all should be kept alive. And running. More than one ISS in the near future? And, trips to the Moon.

So, with that, think on this.

A real wild scenerio. But relative to many other theories of near space (Solar System) espeditions. A second Earth. And there may have been a science fiction story that influences my thinking.

Yes space 'colonies' could be placed in Earth orbital path. Bigger ISS type configurations orbiting the same lane but physically across from our planet, in the ring.

Then think of the 'artificial planet' made from gathered asteriods from the belt beyond Mars. Enough mass size and structural begining (eventual core generator and rocky surface) that will mimic that of Earth, following its path along the way. Then all the terriforming theories could be practiced and ... so on.

BUT, what about the real (astro)physics involved and would it be a dangerous threat to the natural status of the Solar System and the rest of the orbital influences on each other of the planets or the Earth itself?

Would make a great movie, huh? (Yeah, I know I remember 'When Worlds Collide' and 'Off on a Comet' from the books and movies.)

But would it be any 'cheaper' or take any less time that it would take to get us to ol' Alpha?

Just something else to compare and be somewhat relative. But there is still work to be done here on Earth folks. Its possible.

Moving the asteroids to a near Earth orbit presents many problems. First the combined mass of all the asteroids is only 1/30th the mass of Earth's moon. So we don't have nearly enough material to start with, it would make more sense to add the mass to Mars if we are going that route. But the other problem is moving 100's of thousands of small to large asteroids into a near earth orbit will be very energetically costly and leave the newly forming body pretty useless until you are done as you are continuously bombarding it with fresh material. As it gets larger in size its orbit will likely become unstable parked so close to Earth's orbit. As Earth or Venus/Mars will start to throw the new tiny Earth off its orbit over time. The planets generally exist in established 'lanes' that are stable for their large masses to orbit in.

If we want to play with terraforming, Mars is way ahead and would take much less work then the above scenario, even the moon has some terraforming possibilities if that's the way we want to go. If we want to get off world with the least expense, habitats are the way to go. And building them from asteroidal material will definitely give the most bang for our buck in building up a large human presence in space.

Expanding the ISS, space tourism, private commercial space launches, utilizing meteroid or asteroidal material in orbit, SSP, etc. any of these are or will help push us out and off planet and any way we can encourage it will move us forward.
Brooks

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

On Feb 18, 2011, at 9:10 PM, brooksn wrote:

> Moving the asteroids to a near Earth orbit presents many problems.
> First the combined mass of all the asteroids is only 1/30th the mass
> of Earth's moon. So we don't have nearly enough material to start
> with,
>
Surely you jest. Each 100m diameter is, roughly, enough shielding for
a Kalpana One sized orbital settlement (http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/2007KalpanaOne.pdf
-- 5,000 people). Shielding is most of the mass of orbital
settlements. If memory serves there are around 200,000 such asteroids
in Near Earth Orbit alone. So, very very roughly, there's enough for
at least a billion people to live in space. That number is a very
loose ***lower*** bound.

Yes, there are more materials on the Moon than in the NEOs. Exactly
what application do you think would require more than 3% of the entire
mass of the Moon?

> it would make more sense to add the mass to Mars if we are going
> that route. But the other problem is moving 100's of thousands of
> small to large asteroids into a near earth orbit will be very
> energetically costly and leave the newly forming body pretty useless
> until you are done as you are continuously bombarding it with fresh
> material.
>
I don't think anyone has ever seriously proposed building new
planets. That is entirely unnecessary and an awful lot of work. The
same material can get you far, far, far more livable area in rotating
orbital settlements. Why? Because 3D bodies require a lot more
material than 2D shells.

> As it gets larger in size its orbit will likely become unstable
> parked so close to Earth's orbit. As Earth or Venus/Mars will start
> to throw the new tiny Earth off its orbit over time. The planets
> generally exist in established 'lanes' that are stable for their
> large masses to orbit in.
>
> If we want to play with terraforming, Mars is way ahead and would
> take much less work then the above scenario, even the moon has some
> terraforming possibilities if that's the way we want to go. If we
> want to get off world with the least expense, habitats are the way
> to go. And building them from asteroidal material will definitely
> give the most bang for our buck in building up a large human
> presence in space.
>
> Expanding the ISS, space tourism, private commercial space launches,
> utilizing meteroid or asteroidal material in orbit, SSP, etc. any of
> these are or will help push us out and off planet and any way we can
> encourage it will move us forward.
> Brooks
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Harry"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey there group members,
> >
> > Been away for about three months, not physically, just from geting
> in on the group activity. And it appears that there has been some
> redundancy going on with the Postings/E-mails that have been
> appearing since November. Too many 'replies' and attachments of
> previous data.
> >
> > Gotta stay fresh with the input and refrain from beating those
> dead horse topics. At least that's what appears to my reading of the
> few memebers we have who are active.
> >
> > Anyway, to get some distance from Alpha, and the problems with
> colonizations and comparative budgets from space programs (private
> or governmental), let's expand our observations and submit some new
> opinion and theory soon.
> >
> > The subjectmatter smacks of some traits the other wesites I'VE
> edxperienced before here. References to base operations some members
> are trying to promote and repreat retoric that has been around for a
> half dozen years.
> >
> > (I told you that I was trouble, only to the extent of what leads a
> group into complaceny and boredom. If not themselves as they may not
> realize what is being repeated, but to members trying to come into
> the group in the beginning.)
> >
> > As too, the conversation is getting beyond the stated mission of
> the website. Maybe close-Earth colonies are boring and have their
> limitation on the validity as concepts or realistic approaches to
> man's expansion into space.
> >
> > But that is what we relaly have to deal with in our more immediate
> generations to come. Especially given the timescales we here have
> creted with our own history that bogs us down.
> >
> > Having ISS progams is still at least a foothold on the dream.
> Space tourism can take up the slack and provide the 'down to Earth'
> approach for more general public orientations and provision for the
> common man to experience such adventure. At least it all should be
> kept alive. And running. More than one ISS in the near future? And,
> trips to the Moon.
> >
> > So, with that, think on this.
> >
> > A real wild scenerio. But relative to many other theories of near
> space (Solar System) espeditions. A second Earth. And there may have
> been a science fiction story that influences my thinking.
> >
> > Yes space 'colonies' could be placed in Earth orbital path. Bigger
> ISS type configurations orbiting the same lane but physically across
> from our planet, in the ring.
> >
> > Then think of the 'artificial planet' made from gathered asteriods
> from the belt beyond Mars. Enough mass size and structural begining
> (eventual core generator and rocky surface) that will mimic that of
> Earth, following its path along the way. Then all the terriforming
> theories could be practiced and ... so on.
> >
> > BUT, what about the real (astro)physics involved and would it be a
> dangerous threat to the natural status of the Solar System and the
> rest of the orbital influences on each other of the planets or the
> Earth itself?
> >
> > Would make a great movie, huh? (Yeah, I know I remember 'When
> Worlds Collide' and 'Off on a Comet' from the books and movies.)
> >
> > But would it be any 'cheaper' or take any less time that it would
> take to get us to ol' Alpha?
> >
> > Just something else to compare and be somewhat relative. But there
> is still work to be done here on Earth folks. Its possible.
> >

In a late 2004 talk, Rutan made the following predictions:

1) Within 5 years 3,000 tourists will have been to space -- this did
not happen.
2) Within 15 years sub-orbital tourism will be affordable, and 50,000
people will have flown.
3) Within 15 years the first, expensive orbital tourist flights will
have happened.
4) Within 25 years orbital tourism will be affordable.

There have been a lot of wild claims in this business, but Rutan may
know what he's talking about. His privately financed SpaceShip One was
piloted into space three times in 2004, and Rutan has a contract with
Virgin Galactic to build a true sub-orbital tourist vehicle.

Al Globus
http://alglobus.net

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

> > Moving the asteroids to a near Earth orbit presents many problems.
> > First the combined mass of all the asteroids is only 1/30th the mass
> > of Earth's moon. So we don't have nearly enough material to start
> > with,
> >
> Surely you jest. Each 100m diameter is, roughly, enough shielding for
> a Kalpana One sized orbital settlement (http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/2007KalpanaOne.pdf
> -- 5,000 people). Shielding is most of the mass of orbital
> settlements. If memory serves there are around 200,000 such asteroids
> in Near Earth Orbit alone. So, very very roughly, there's enough for
> at least a billion people to live in space. That number is a very
> loose ***lower*** bound.
>
> Yes, there are more materials on the Moon than in the NEOs. Exactly
> what application do you think would require more than 3% of the entire
> mass of the Moon?

We are not talking about the same things, his proposal was moving all asteroids into a near Earth orbit, combining them, and terraforming it as a new second Earth. That proposal is what I was analyzing. I completely agree with using NEOs for building habitats.

> > it would make more sense to add the mass to Mars if we are going
> > that route. But the other problem is moving 100's of thousands of
> > small to large asteroids into a near earth orbit will be very
> > energetically costly and leave the newly forming body pretty useless
> > until you are done as you are continuously bombarding it with fresh
> > material.
> >
> I don't think anyone has ever seriously proposed building new
> planets. That is entirely unnecessary and an awful lot of work. The
> same material can get you far, far, far more livable area in rotating
> orbital settlements. Why? Because 3D bodies require a lot more
> material than 2D shells.

Well, that's why I was trying to show it as not a good idea.
Brooks

Hey back,
What would be the purpose of placing a colony opposite the sun from Earth? Oh, and there was a story...Double Planet or somesuch.
You really are taking on a big job if youre gonna somehow sweep all the Belt Asteroids into one small volume of space (and I guess if we had the power to do that we could prettty much choose the orbit in which we wanted it to come together), and then figure how to get it to accrete rather than remain a pack of boulders. Maybe we have to grab a few moons for the mix if the mass isnt sufficient to start the core fires. Or maybe we could blow a number of nukes in the center of the pack, but wed have to come up with some way to stop the concussion from blowing the whole concatenation apart.

I prefer the alternative of mining the asteroids out in the vacuum where I can get at the resources easily, process it on site, and use onsite materials as a base until a full scale habitat can be fabricated.

From: Harry
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:35 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Stopping By

Hey there group members,

Been away for about three months, not physically, just from geting in on the group activity. And it appears that there has been some redundancy going on with the Postings/E-mails that have been appearing since November. Too many 'replies' and attachments of previous data.

Gotta stay fresh with the input and refrain from beating those dead horse topics. At least that's what appears to my reading of the few memebers we have who are active.

Anyway, to get some distance from Alpha, and the problems with colonizations and comparative budgets from space programs (private or governmental), let's expand our observations and submit some new opinion and theory soon.

The subjectmatter smacks of some traits the other wesites I'VE edxperienced before here. References to base operations some members are trying to promote and repreat retoric that has been around for a half dozen years.

(I told you that I was trouble, only to the extent of what leads a group into complaceny and boredom. If not themselves as they may not realize what is being repeated, but to members trying to come into the group in the beginning.)

As too, the conversation is getting beyond the stated mission of the website. Maybe close-Earth colonies are boring and have their limitation on the validity as concepts or realistic approaches to man's expansion into space.

But that is what we relaly have to deal with in our more immediate generations to come. Especially given the timescales we here have creted with our own history that bogs us down.

Having ISS progams is still at least a foothold on the dream. Space tourism can take up the slack and provide the 'down to Earth' approach for more general public orientations and provision for the common man to experience such adventure. At least it all should be kept alive. And running. More than one ISS in the near future? And, trips to the Moon.

So, with that, think on this.

A real wild scenerio. But relative to many other theories of near space (Solar System) espeditions. A second Earth. And there may have been a science fiction story that influences my thinking.

Yes space 'colonies' could be placed in Earth orbital path. Bigger ISS type configurations orbiting the same lane but physically across from our planet, in the ring.

Then think of the 'artificial planet' made from gathered asteriods from the belt beyond Mars. Enough mass size and structural begining (eventual core generator and rocky surface) that will mimic that of Earth, following its path along the way. Then all the terriforming theories could be practiced and ... so on.

BUT, what about the real (astro)physics involved and would it be a dangerous threat to the natural status of the Solar System and the rest of the orbital influences on each other of the planets or the Earth itself?

Would make a great movie, huh? (Yeah, I know I remember 'When Worlds Collide' and 'Off on a Comet' from the books and movies.)

But would it be any 'cheaper' or take any less time that it would take to get us to ol' Alpha?

Just something else to compare and be somewhat relative. But there is still work to be done here on Earth folks. Its possible.