Given the poor condition of the US and world economy it looks like we will need to bootstrap a space colony. That is use robots to pre-build a place and than just deliver the people.

My guess is a 1000Kg payload delivered to a NEO and four 1000 Kg resupply follow-ups, spread over 8 years, would be enough to build a habitat for 250 people. We would need an object with a good supply of water. Do we know of any NEO with water?

5 tons of payload total to build a habitat for 250 people? Seems a little light to be able to accomplish that much. There are many asteroids that are thought to have high water content. In fact a few are thought to be dead comets and occasionally they still 'wake' up and we can see them give off volatiles.

Brooks

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

On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:15 PM, edpell wrote:

> Given the poor condition of the US and world economy it looks like
> we will need to bootstrap a space colony. That is use robots to pre-
> build a place and than just deliver the people.
>
I don't think we are anywhere near ready to start building a space
settlement right now. We need much better launch, the ability to
build really large things in space -- not just the settlement but the
power system and heat rejection, we need to understand small more-or-
less closed ecosystems, and about a million smaller issues.

I think the right thing to do now is to develop commercial markets
that will, in turn, develop the technology and infrastructure that
will, eventually, make it practical to start building actual
settlements. There are at least two such potential industries:
tourism and space solar power. In addition, if makes a lot of sense
for governments to find and catalog the near-earth objects for
planetary defense, and that catalog will come in quite handy to get
materials for orbital settlements.

For the long version of these ideas (or at least my version of them),
see http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/PathsToSpaceSettlement2009.pdf

>
> My guess is a 1000Kg payload delivered to a NEO and four 1000 Kg
> resupply follow-ups, spread over 8 years, would be enough to build a
> habitat for 250 people.
>
I would suggest working out the details -- figure out what equipment
you need and figure the mass of each bit. Don't forget the repair
shop and spares. I presume you are sending the gear out to turn NEO
materials into a settlement.

> We would need an object with a good supply of water. Do we know of
> any NEO with water?
>
Lots, perhaps even most, NEOs have ample quantities of water. For
example, some are extinct comets. The trickier bit is finding an NEO
with the metals you need for structures and the water and other
volatiles. If you can build the structure out of carbon compounds
that would be better as there are lots of NEOs with plenty of carbon
and water. That would, of course, suggest a much different equipment
and technology basis than working with metals.

>

Space Solar Power (SSP) can supply massive amounts of electrical power
to Earth with no greenhouse gas emissions and no dependence on the
Persian Gulf. The basic idea: gather solar energy in space and
transmit it to Earth. Today's satellites already use solar energy
and transmission has been demonstrated with 90%+ efficiency. If the
space segment is built from lunar materials, SSP may be the cleanest
possible energy option since most of the work is done in space. The
energy available is far, far more than used today, more than enough
for everyone.

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.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM, edpell wrote:
(...)
> Given the poor condition of the US and world economy it looks like we will need to bootstrap a space colony.
(...)

Others have already exposed some objections of technical nature to you
assertions, and I would add an observation in the economic aspect: the
world economy is not exactly in poor shape. See for instance the GDP
growth of some emerging powers during 2010 - and the GDP growth of
Earth itself as a whole:

China 10.1%
India 8.30%
Brazil 7.50%
World 4.60%

I would think that what is happening is a shift and redistribution of
wealth across the world, which will naturally make the GDP growth of
some traditional powers look meager. Anyway, in absolute terms the GDP
growth of the US last year was not bad, 2.80% ...

Of course, as it is relevant for your discussion, arguably none of
those emerging powers has the space capabilities of the US yet.
(Although China has manned spaceflight, India can launch satellites
and probes and Brazil has launched suborbital test rockets.)

Al,

Have you considered working the Singularity into your projections? The notion that in 50 years or so Artificial Intelligence will surpass human intelligence, that computers will start advising, then being given control over, more important human decisions? I'm not talking about Skynet and Terminator, just the notion that computers will become so capable that they can take over so much of what we aspire to do. It costs so much more to lift a 200-lb. organic intelligence into space, along with the complex inputs (food, atmosphere, water) that they require to stay there, when for the same amount of lift you could put dozens of intelligent robots into space, that need only to collect the sunlight that is in abundance, and the raw materials that are a few delta v's away, and start building--well, whatever they and we decide to build. Habitats, solar panels, interstellar craft. In 100 years it will only be the humans that need to be lifted off earth, because the robots can be built that will gather and build everything for us. As we struggle with our first manned missions to the nearest stars, robot craft will have visited half a dozen systems, and by the time we're colonizing our third star system, they'll be hundreds of stars ahead of us. I just hope humans will learn to retain some autonomy, and not just flop into the robots arms and say, "entertain me."

Brad W.

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Brad Walsh wrote:
>
> Al,
>
> Have you considered working the Singularity into your projections? The notion that in 50 years or so Artificial Intelligence will surpass human intelligence, that computers will start advising, then being given control over, more important human decisions? I'm not talking about Skynet and Terminator, just the notion that computers will become so capable that they can take over so much of what we aspire to do. It costs so much more to lift a 200-lb. organic intelligence into space, along with the complex inputs (food, atmosphere, water) that they require to stay there, when for the same amount of lift you could put dozens of intelligent robots into space, that need only to collect the sunlight that is in abundance, and the raw materials that are a few delta v's away, and start building--well, whatever they and we decide to build. Habitats, solar panels, interstellar craft. In 100 years it will only be the humans that need to be lifted off earth, because the robots can be built that will gather and build everything for us. As we struggle with our first manned missions to the nearest stars, robot craft will have visited half a dozen systems, and by the time we're colonizing our third star system, they'll be hundreds of stars ahead of us. I just hope humans will learn to retain some autonomy, and not just flop into the robots arms and say, "entertain me."
>

To me, the Singularity seems like one of those "fusion is always 50
years away" kind of things.

Sean Dzafovic

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Sean Dzafovic wrote:
(...)
> To me, the Singularity seems like one of those "fusion is always 50
> years away" kind of things.
(...)

I had my time of Singularitarianism, but now I am also skeptic about
the coming wonders announced by that school of thought. Perhaps
because, according to some "hard take off" predictions, the
Singularity should have started a couple of years *ago* :), but most
likely because the inductive argument in favor of the Singularity is
the same behind many other predictions that ultimately failed:
"because this or that technology is progressing at an exponential rate
now, it will progress exponentially forever". Alas, unlimited
exponentials don't exist in nature (or human societies for that
matter); what we have are sigmoids that *look* exponential for a time.
(In the best case. In the worst, we have spectacular crashes at the
top of the "exponential", as we often see when an economic bubble
collapses.)

Lets remember that the same kind of argument was used in the 60s, but
applied to space travel, not artificial intelligence. "Look, in this
decade we put men on the Moon and produced commercial supersonic
flight, so it is obvious that in the year 2000 we will have
supraluminal starships able to flight at Warp 9.8!" :)

On Feb 20, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Brad Walsh wrote:

>
> Al,
>
> Have you considered working the Singularity into your projections?
>
'Singularities' (capitalized) are like saddles in a vector field.
It's all but impossible to know what will happen on the other side of
them. Thus, discussions that assume Singularities are usually
uninteresting, since one can make all sorts of claims that can be
neither refuted nor supported.

> The notion that in 50 years or so Artificial Intelligence will
> surpass human intelligence,
>
I program computers for a living. I've done AI research. My Dad did
brain research. My take: humans and computers have vastly different
kinds of intelligence. There are certainly things computers can do
right now that out perform people by a lot. That's because those
computers were specifically designed to do so. People are different.
We aren't designed at all. We have evolved. What have we evolved to
do? Survive. And we're good at it. Computers are terrible at
surviving, and we would be wise to keep it that way.

> that computers will start advising, then being given control over,
> more important human decisions?
>
They already decide how to brake in an emergency. They already can
gain temporary control of stock markets. The issue is simply which
decisions are made by computer and, perhaps more important, who does
the programming. What any computer does is an expression of the will
(and blind spots) of the programmers.

> I'm not talking about Skynet and Terminator, just the notion that
> computers will become so capable that they can take over so much of
> what we aspire to do. It costs so much more to lift a 200-lb.
> organic intelligence into space, along with the complex inputs
> (food, atmosphere, water) that they require to stay there, when for
> the same amount of lift you could put dozens of intelligent robots
> into space, that need only to collect the sunlight that is in
> abundance, and the raw materials that are a few delta v's away, and
> start building--well, whatever they and we decide to build.
>
The point of space settlements isn't to have robotic colonies, it's to
live their ourselves. What we'd like them to do is build really nice
places for us to live in.

I think we are more-or-less in agreement.

> Habitats, solar panels, interstellar craft. In 100 years it will
> only be the humans that need to be lifted off earth, because the
> robots can be built that will gather and build everything for us. As
> we struggle with our first manned missions to the nearest stars,
> robot craft will have visited half a dozen systems, and by the time
> we're colonizing our third star system, they'll be hundreds of stars
> ahead of us. I just hope humans will learn to retain some autonomy,
> and not just flop into the robots arms and say, "entertain me."
>
> Brad W.
>
> > To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> > From: alglobus@...
> > Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:38:52 -0800
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] money is in short supply
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:15 PM, edpell wrote:
> >
> > > Given the poor condition of the US and world economy it looks like
> > > we will need to bootstrap a space colony. That is use robots to
> pre-
> > > build a place and than just deliver the people.
> > >
> > I don't think we are anywhere near ready to start building a space
> > settlement right now. We need much better launch, the ability to
> > build really large things in space -- not just the settlement but
> the
> > power system and heat rejection, we need to understand small more-
> or-
> > less closed ecosystems, and about a million smaller issues.
> >
> > I think the right thing to do now is to develop commercial markets
> > that will, in turn, develop the technology and infrastructure that
> > will, eventually, make it practical to start building actual
> > settlements. There are at least two such potential industries:
> > tourism and space solar power. In addition, if makes a lot of sense
> > for governments to find and catalog the near-earth objects for
> > planetary defense, and that catalog will come in quite handy to get
> > materials for orbital settlements.
> >
> > For the long version of these ideas (or at least my version of
> them),
> > see http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/PathsToSpaceSettlement2009.pdf
> >
> > > My guess is a 1000Kg payload delivered to a NEO and four 1000 Kg
> > > resupply follow-ups, spread over 8 years, would be enough to
> build a
> > > habitat for 250 people.
> > >
> > I would suggest working out the details -- figure out what equipment
> > you need and figure the mass of each bit. Don't forget the repair
> > shop and spares. I presume you are sending the gear out to turn NEO
> > materials into a settlement.
> >
> > > We would need an object with a good supply of water. Do we know of
> > > any NEO with water?
> > >
> > Lots, perhaps even most, NEOs have ample quantities of water. For
> > example, some are extinct comets. The trickier bit is finding an NEO
> > with the metals you need for structures and the water and other
> > volatiles. If you can build the structure out of carbon compounds
> > that would be better as there are lots of NEOs with plenty of carbon
> > and water. That would, of course, suggest a much different equipment
> > and technology basis than working with metals.
> >
> > Space Solar Power (SSP) can supply massive amounts of electrical
> power
> > to Earth with no greenhouse gas emissions and no dependence on the
> > Persian Gulf. The basic idea: gather solar energy in space and
> > transmit it to Earth. Today's satellites already use solar energy
> > and transmission has been demonstrated with 90%+ efficiency. If the
> > space segment is built from lunar materials, SSP may be the cleanest
> > possible energy option since most of the work is done in space. The
> > energy available is far, far more than used today, more than enough
> > for everyone.
> >
> > 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.
> >

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth
in usable real estate. See http://space.alglobus.net for details.

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.

If we had robots capable of independently building a space colony, then we would have robots capable of independently building a city. And if we did, I don't think we'd be talking about the poor condition of our economy.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of edpell
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:15 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] money is in short supply

Given the poor condition of the US and world economy it looks like we will need to bootstrap a space colony. That is use robots to pre-build a place and than just deliver the people.

99% of the mass will be fabricated from the NEO material by the robots.

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

On a NEO there is building material for the taking. Not so here. On a NEO there is full time sunlight for energy. Not so here.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike" wrote:

On 24.02.2011 02:04, edpell wrote:
> On a NEO there is building material for the taking. Not so here. On a
> NEO there is full time sunlight for energy. Not so here.

Hi Ed,

this is my thinking too. A NEO would be the best and cheapest way to go.
If we can do it by remote control, habitats or spacecraft could be built by
manufacturing the hull of a radiation shielded spacecraft, a cycler or a
habitat
from concrete made of NEO-material.

Lots of asteroid dust might be the main material for concrete production.
Because of the low asteroid gravity, this dust would be easily grabbed
by asteroid miner spacecraft which just are
plunging into the dust layer and then transport those material, for
instance with 1 or two tons each plunge to the
fabrication site near the asteroid.
Fabrication happens near the asteroid, the main source of hull material,
not in the vicinity of Earth.
So there is no need to deflect an asteroid into Earth orbit and only the
material needed for the hull
has to be transported back to Earth.

This (first spacecraft-) hull or parts of the hull in ring-form would
return by remote control to Earth-orbit ,
where the interior of the spacecraft/habitat would be completed by
astronauts.

How would I do this?
Lightweight, self deploying molds with attached ion propulsion and/or
solar-sails with "Roller-Reefing" attitude
control, station keeping and steering would get filled with materials
for concrete production from the NEO.
If water is not available at the production asteroid, it has to be
acquired from other asteroid sources which
are not already burned out through solar heat in the near Sun vicinity.

The molds would be in ring form, each allowing the creation of a - say
1 one-meter-slice of a beton ring with
say 20 meter diameter and 5 meter thickness for radiation shielding.
By rotating the molds in space, the materials are mixed with water, the
molds are heated by the Sun radiation
from the frontside to Sun and by mirrors from the backside to Sun.

As those ring-molds each have their own propulsion, they can join
together after the concrete rings are hardened
and form a columnar body which then will be held together by
carbon-nanotube tows and glued together with concrete.

Regards
Frank

demonstrator-spacecraft of a Solar-Sail-Power-Station (SSPS) for space
based solar power production
see at http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/PresentationISSS2010V13.pdf
(12 MByte-PDF-presentation).

This direct-launch-able Power-Station has ample room for daughter units
e. g. asteroid miners and telecommunication and
observation satellites and could transport a complete mission to target
asteroids.
Since it produces also ample energy (solar-cell-area about double of the
ISS, deployed in one single launch)
it can speed up transportation to and from the asteroid substantially by
powering SEP-propulsion.

As solar foils would be available 1.5 micron CORIN polyimide thin film
a-Si:H solar
panels, 168 Watts/m2, which would weigh about 32 kilograms for 3,120
square
meters for a Ariane V-launcher-version of the SSPS-design and produce
in this version 524 kWp DC electricity

This would be enough, to power one DS4G thruster
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/new-ion-engine-test-success/
as a main propuldion drive, which could deliver exhaust speeds of about
210 km/second.
.

To your first point, I think any robot capable of chewing up raw asteroidal regolith and converting it into usable elements could chew up raw soil lying around and do the same.

To your second point, while I agree that continuous sunlight is an outstanding advantage, I don't think the reason why we don't have robots building cities by themselves is because they can't be solar powered 24/7. (What about nuclear-powered robots, or robots we simply gas up at intervals?) I think the reason is because robotic capabilities are not sufficiently far along yet.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of edpell
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:05 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: money is in short supply

On a NEO there is building material for the taking. Not so here. On a NEO there is full time sunlight for energy. Not so here.

http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/PresentationISSS2010V13.pdf

Interesting paper...did you author it"? Looks plausible from an investment point of view, as well as workable on a practical level. Given the contract that has been entered into allowing for the reception of beamed power (by 2013), I hope they can get the project finished and that it performs up to spec. Shouldnt be difficult to get it launched, since it rides up in an Ariane V. Ill be even happier to see the first one deployed to an asteroid. I dont quite get your reference to ships diving into the dust layer of the asteroid to produce material for your concrete rings...or, for that matter, how you plan to use these rings to build spacecraft and habitats, though I suppose a habitat of that diameter (20 meters) might be made (kinda small though).

From: Frank
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:31 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Cc: edpell
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: money is in short supply

On 24.02.2011 02:04, edpell wrote:
> On a NEO there is building material for the taking. Not so here. On a
> NEO there is full time sunlight for energy. Not so here.

Hi Ed,

this is my thinking too. A NEO would be the best and cheapest way to go.
If we can do it by remote control, habitats or spacecraft could be built by
manufacturing the hull of a radiation shielded spacecraft, a cycler or a
habitat
from concrete made of NEO-material.

Lots of asteroid dust might be the main material for concrete production.
Because of the low asteroid gravity, this dust would be easily grabbed
by asteroid miner spacecraft which just are
plunging into the dust layer and then transport those material, for
instance with 1 or two tons each plunge to the
fabrication site near the asteroid.
Fabrication happens near the asteroid, the main source of hull material,
not in the vicinity of Earth.
So there is no need to deflect an asteroid into Earth orbit and only the
material needed for the hull
has to be transported back to Earth.

This (first spacecraft-) hull or parts of the hull in ring-form would
return by remote control to Earth-orbit ,
where the interior of the spacecraft/habitat would be completed by
astronauts.

How would I do this?
Lightweight, self deploying molds with attached ion propulsion and/or
solar-sails with "Roller-Reefing" attitude
control, station keeping and steering would get filled with materials
for concrete production from the NEO.
If water is not available at the production asteroid, it has to be
acquired from other asteroid sources which
are not already burned out through solar heat in the near Sun vicinity.

The molds would be in ring form, each allowing the creation of a - say
1 one-meter-slice of a beton ring with
say 20 meter diameter and 5 meter thickness for radiation shielding.
By rotating the molds in space, the materials are mixed with water, the
molds are heated by the Sun radiation
from the frontside to Sun and by mirrors from the backside to Sun.

As those ring-molds each have their own propulsion, they can join
together after the concrete rings are hardened
and form a columnar body which then will be held together by
carbon-nanotube tows and glued together with concrete.

Regards
Frank

demonstrator-spacecraft of a Solar-Sail-Power-Station (SSPS) for space
based solar power production
see at http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/PresentationISSS2010V13.pdf
(12 MByte-PDF-presentation).

This direct-launch-able Power-Station has ample room for daughter units
e. g. asteroid miners and telecommunication and
observation satellites and could transport a complete mission to target
asteroids.
Since it produces also ample energy (solar-cell-area about double of the
ISS, deployed in one single launch)
it can speed up transportation to and from the asteroid substantially by
powering SEP-propulsion.

As solar foils would be available 1.5 micron CORIN polyimide thin film
a-Si:H solar
panels, 168 Watts/m2, which would weigh about 32 kilograms for 3,120
square
meters for a Ariane V-launcher-version of the SSPS-design and produce
in this version 524 kWp DC electricity

This would be enough, to power one DS4G thruster
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/new-ion-engine-test-success/
as a main propuldion drive, which could deliver exhaust speeds of about
210 km/second.
.

Yeah even if that's the case it seems a little light. With those 5 tons you'll have to have the ability to land on an asteroid, analyze the asteroids make up. Then process raw material, seperate it, process the ore into exactly what you want, fabricate the actual panels, put the pieces together strong enough to withstand vacuum. (All in near zero g.) Then you'll need air, water, soil, energy systems, waste heat systems, toilets, kitchens and everything that goes in them.

I could maybe see a simple system, such as a drilling robot to get to the center of a 'rubble' pile asteroid and then inflating a 'balloon' to hollow out your space. You'd still need to do everything else after but it would allow you a place to start. But I would think even that would take more then 5 tons.

Brooks

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

Brooks,

Soil = sand + water + air + compost + earthworms, only the latter two would have to be brought up from earth. Water from an asteroid, no need to lift much of that. Air = nitrogen + oxygen + some noble gasses, might have to look awhile for asteroids with enough of those, but might be doable. Do you like the brushed stainless steel look for your kitchens, because
stainless steel is iron + nickel, the ingredients of a whole lot of
asteroids. Did you read the plan sent out today about making concrete construction segments from asteroid dust and water? Want rebar? Find an iron asteroid and have your robot smelt and cast.

I know, no current robotic spacecraft can do this. But with NASA budgets and voter sentiments about space exploration as they are now, we've got nothing but time to tinker with these things, and then hope somebody will take the prototypes up to the ISS or Bigelow hab to try them out. We ain't going anywhere off-earth any time soon, not till we can bring the cost down by, oh, say, making most of what we'll need robotically in orbit from NEOs.

Here's another advantage of developing robotic on-orbit construction--no matter what the dominant human space activity is 100 years from now, whether it's tourism, Chinese collectives, squared-jawed American explorers, solar power, permanent habitats, or just what we've got now, mostly robotic exploration, the one thing that they would all want is to buy some of the materials they need to complete their jobs from storehouses already in orbit, so they can cut down on what they have to lift out of the gravity well.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
From: bhn1700@...
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:51:40 +0000
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: money is in short supply

Yeah even if that's the case it seems a little light. With those 5 tons you'll have to have the ability to land on an asteroid, analyze the asteroids make up. Then process raw material, seperate it, process the ore into exactly what you want, fabricate the actual panels, put the pieces together strong enough to withstand vacuum. (All in near zero g.) Then you'll need air, water, soil, energy systems, waste heat systems, toilets, kitchens and everything that goes in them.

I could maybe see a simple system, such as a drilling robot to get to the center of a 'rubble' pile asteroid and then inflating a 'balloon' to hollow out your space. You'd still need to do everything else after but it would allow you a place to start. But I would think even that would take more then 5 tons.

Brooks

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

Am 24.02.2011 18:50, schrieb Victor Smith:
>
> http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/PresentationISSS2010V13.pdf
>
> Interesting paper...did you author it"?
>

Thanks, and yes, I am the author and had the opportunity to present my
design with that presentation, though in a shorter version.
>
> Looks plausible from an investment point of view, as well as workable
> on a practical level. Given the contract that has been entered into
> allowing for the reception of beamed power (by 2013), I hope they can
> get the project finished and that it performs up to spec.
>
They expected to start delivering energy from 2016 on, but their plans
have nothing to do with my design - although I would be happy,
if they gave it a try for a demonstrator SSPS :-) . The advantage of
this design is to get larger deployable solar cell areas into space
in one single launch as the ISS features now - after years of
construction works.

Another advantage is the integration of a highly control-able fuelless
attitude control and station keeping system by Roller Reefing.
As every solar cell array can be used also for solar sailing, it is
obvious to use the roll able thin film solar cells for high precision
attitude control and station keeping too.

> Shouldnt be difficult to get it launched, since it rides up in an
> Ariane V.
>
Unfortunately there are no plans to use my design,
this is just an example to show, how large the deployable solar cell
arrays could get.
So I had to choose a launcher. Every other launcher would be fine too,
but I used
a big one to make my point. A smaller one would allow low cost low Earth
orbit launch,
while the craft would reach the mission orbit with the electric
propulsion system.

> Ill be even happier to see the first one deployed to an asteroid.
>

> I dont quite get your reference to ships diving into the dust layer
> of the asteroid to produce material for your concrete rings.
>
The reference is the presentation. The SSPS is a mothership, able to
take in several daughter units at once, for
instance asteroid miner spacecraft and observation satellites (see page
10 of the presentation, the mothership with 4 daughters in this case).
As the asteroid gravitation is so small, slow (for instance ion
propulsion) acceleration might be enough to get into such an dust layer.

The mining daughter units would carry a scooping container formed like a
scoop which is open on the front side, closed to other sides, or a
container with a releasable lid underneath and accelerate with it
thrusters towards the ground of the asteroid scooping or pressing the
container down and
accelerate backwards after that. The special DTU (double thruster
units)-design allows, that the daughter can slow down, stop or reverse
each turn or acceleration just by switching the thrusters of the used
units, since each DTU-unit carries two thrusters installed opposite to
each other.

Take a look onto the presentation pages 17 and 20, where 3 of several
possible daughter designs are shown.
The container could be strapped to the net of the standard daughter on
page 17.
As the mothership has a docking station in this case of about 28 cbm
volume having say 3 miner daughters, should
be possible - for instance
one scooper, one with press down container and one with a container on
the topside and robot arms to collect
other objects than sand or dust. All containers would use a press out
mechanism too.

Of course observation and communication daughters should be also
available with every operation to allow
remote control by using film and foto data. The mothership could
generate the energy for large bandwidth
to provide quasi life videos with a small time lag for NEOs (much less
than for Mars).

As main material I would prefer dust, because you don't have to grind it
any more.
If needed you just have to do some sorting of material components by
using magnetic and dimagnetic forces,
and filtering techniques.
As this dust might be collision dust, metallic parts should be part of
the material.
Each of those containers of say 1 or 2 cbm volume, would allow to
extract some tons of material depending on the
specific mass with one single landing only.

Then the daughters unload their materials at the construction site,
preferably if this is possible just by pressing it directly
out to the ring-molds.
For the first missions this materials should be brought back to the ISS
for examination and figuring out how to use it
and try space concreting techniques near the ISS.

To auction/ sell some of the materials would be also a good help to
finance the venture.
To sell video material of the first operations to publishing and
licenses to video-gaming companies
(producing a game a la Mars miner now for asteroids), would be of help.

To spread the financing load further it might be a good idea to sell
docking spots at the mother for single daughter units
at the mothership, so a company or an agency can concentrate on the
design of one daughter while another company/
agency provides the mothership.

So an for instance ESA/NASA/JAXA-venture with the participation of
several private companies would be possible and
help spreading financing in this cash strapped times. And it would allow
to install space infra structure and show that
the development is going forward, even though the agencies have not
really much more funds as in former times.

> ..or, for that matter, how you plan to use these rings to build
> spacecraft and habitats,
>
the molds would get filled with the concreting materials and mixed with
water.
They would rotate and use gravitation for mixing as the concrete mixers
on Earth,
just that this would be rotational gravitation.

The opening would be at the inner side of the Ring-Mold instead of on
the upside of an
Earthly mixer-machine. The materials would get pressed out of the
daughter unit through
a pipe into the ring, where the rotation keeps it insides and the
concrete cures.
The arrangement of mirrors would help to hold the correct temperature.
The hull should be diffusion tight, so that the water cannot diffuse out
before the curing
has happened. The ring stays in the mold.

As each mold has it's own thrusters, several of them, already cured can
arrange
themself with those thrusters to a columnar body which get's strapped
together
with CNT-tows from outside. The contact zones of the rings would feature
groves
which get filled with concrete to form a tight connection at the contact
zones.

The lids of the hull would be made with smaller rings or disks mounted
inside the
last ring of each end.
One of those rings could feature also Roller-Reefing for fuelless
attitude control and
power generation for the hull.

> though I suppose a habitat of that diameter (20 meters) might be made
> (kinda small though).
>
Those 20 m hull was not meant to serve as a habitat, rather as a
spacecraft which provides
radiation protection to Mars or asteroid astronauts but also as
demonstrator for larger
bodies, like habitats.

bist wishes

Frank

On 24.02.2011 21:51, brooksn wrote:
>
> Yeah even if that's the case it seems a little light. With those 5
> tons you'll have to have the ability to land on an asteroid, analyze
> the asteroids make up.
>

The mothership does not land on the asteroid, the daughter units do.
The mothership provides only long distance transportation and recharging
possibility to the daughters, evtl. also melting services
since it could carry a laser to melt or cut out ice from the asteroid.

The first missions would only extract materials and bring them back to
the ISS or another deflatable laboratory in LEO. There the processing
and separating processes and equipment have to be developed and tested.
If they are developed the next mission goes back to the locations where
the best suited ores have been found.

At this near asteroid construction site the daughters mine the asteroid
and unload the materials to the construction sites/molds.
One single operation of one miner might need only two or three hours to
scoop up the material and deliver it to the construction/separation
site, which is freely floating in space. Than the next operation could
start. This is the advantage of low gravity asteroid operations for
habitat construction against gravity well construction. You can use
relatively small equipment with efficient but weak propulsion and carry
(Earth mass) tons of materials,
which you couldn't even move on Earth.

And you have more than one miner per mothership and can use more than
one mothership to speed up the
operation if needed.

> Then process raw material, seperate it, process the ore into exactly
> what you want, fabricate the actual panels, put the pieces together
> strong enough to withstand vacuum. (All in near zero g.)
>
I have no panels and no pieces which have to be cut together. I have
only hardened molds with beton rings in it, which get attached to each other
and held together by CNT-tows and in the end get sealed from the outside
with concrete again as described in my previous message.

Those deployable molds have to be launched from Earth or installed in
Earth orbit. They feature already a propulsion system for each ring.

Remote controlled, spider-like robots with additional arms and hands
could do the outside jobs of attaching the rings.

> Then you'll need air, water, soil, energy systems, waste heat systems,
> toilets, kitchens and everything that goes in them.
>
I would like to do this with robotics first, so I don't need anything to
provide human life support (besides the life support for
humans in LEO) in the beginning.
The energy system would be a Roller Reefing system on such a ring, the
same system as the motherships are using too.
It provides early fuelless station keeping and attitude control for the
raw-hull also.
If the hull is constructed, humans can arrive to finish the interior or
if it is a small spacecraft hull, the hull can return by remote control
to LEO.
>
> I could maybe see a simple system, such as a drilling robot to get to
> the center of a 'rubble' pile asteroid and then inflating a 'balloon'
> to hollow out your space.
>

I would prefer a concrete hull instead of a rubble pile. It should be
more stabile, uses the ressources better, should be easier to construct when
free floating, is better accessible from all sides and carries less mass
which uses up less fuel when the hull has to be moved, rotated or
attitude controlled.

Best wishes

Frank

From: Brad Walsh

> Here's another advantage of developing robotic on-orbit construction--
> no matter what the dominant human space activity is 100 years from now,
> whether it's tourism, Chinese collectives, squared-jawed American
> explorers, solar power, permanent habitats, or just what we've got now,
> mostly robotic exploration, the one thing that they would all want is
> to buy some of the materials they need to complete their jobs from
> storehouses already in orbit, so they can cut down on what they have to
> lift out of the gravity well.

To a certain extent, I agree with this, but an important point is that we have to get to some activity involving many mega-tonnages in orbit in order to invoke ET materials as an advantage. For any activity not requiring many mega-tons of some material or product, use of ET materials cannot be economically justified.

That's why SPS has remained so popular over the years among the space materials crowd. SPS needs to be large scale in order to be efficient.

Regards,

Mike Combs

On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Frank wrote:

> How would I do this? [return the hull of a settlement built from an
> NEO on site]
> Lightweight, self deploying molds with attached ion propulsion and/or
> solar-sails with "Roller-Reefing" attitude

Do the calculation as to the mass of the solar sail needed for this.
In http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html the calcs
I did suggest that if the sail is made on the ground it weighs about
as much as what is being transported. To get much mass advantage, you
have to manufacture the sail in orbit. This produces a very, very
thin sail. Check to see if it can survive being 'roller-reefed' much!

Of course, I might have made a mistake :-)

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for about $200,000 may start in a few years. See www.virgingalactic.com
and http://www.spaceadventures.com/media/releases/2006-02/348 for
details.

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.

Forgive me for sounding too conventional, but how about this for asteroid
mining:
1. Launch a rocket derived from shuttle external tank.
2. Assume it (with side mounted boosters) could send 25-30 ton of equipment to
an asteroid.
3.Mine a chondrite, which is high in water.
4. Bake mined material to remove volatiles.
5. Split volatiles between water and other stuff.
6. Split the water for H and O to go to the repective tanks in the rock. The
other volatiles go to the nitrogen tank (mounted above the other two in a
shuttle external tank design)
7. The remaining solids might be desiccated rock and powder which can be put
into Santa Claus sized bags alongside the ship.

Over the course of a few years, both liquid fuel tanks could be filled and many,
many tons of asteroid solids bagged.
A followup ship could take the rockbits and remove some iron and other metal to
cast structural members. These standard parts could for the framework of a
cylinder built around the first ship (now fueled). As the second ship gets
restocked with volatiles, the scaffolding is built for slag.

Pack the slag in the framework and fuse together.

If you wanted a 20 meterring for radiation shielding for transport, put a
Bigelow inflatable inside and there you go.

Solar sails can be used for bits, but the one shuttle derived vehicle could
provide the plenty of manuevering thrust - alternatively lots of water for
radiation sheilding.

From: Frank
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Cc: brooksn
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 7:02:11 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: money is in short supply

On 24.02.2011 21:51, brooksn wrote:
>
> Yeah even if that's the case it seems a little light. With those 5
> tons you'll have to have the ability to land on an asteroid, analyze
> the asteroids make up.
>

The mothership does not land on the asteroid, the daughter units do.
The mothership provides only long distance transportation and recharging
possibility to the daughters, evtl. also melting services
since it could carry a laser to melt or cut out ice from the asteroid.

The first missions would only extract materials and bring them back to
the ISS or another deflatable laboratory in LEO. There the processing
and separating processes and equipment have to be developed and tested.
If they are developed the next mission goes back to the locations where
the best suited ores have been found.

At this near asteroid construction site the daughters mine the asteroid
and unload the materials to the construction sites/molds.
One single operation of one miner might need only two or three hours to
scoop up the material and deliver it to the construction/separation
site, which is freely floating in space. Than the next operation could
start. This is the advantage of low gravity asteroid operations for
habitat construction against gravity well construction. You can use
relatively small equipment with efficient but weak propulsion and carry
(Earth mass) tons of materials,
which you couldn't even move on Earth.

And you have more than one miner per mothership and can use more than
one mothership to speed up the
operation if needed.

Am 25.02.2011 18:14, schrieb Al Globus:
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Frank wrote:
>
> > How would I do this? [return the hull of a settlement built from an
> > NEO on site]
> > Lightweight, self deploying molds with attached ion propulsion and/or
> > solar-sails with "Roller-Reefing" attitude
>
> Do the calculation as to the mass of the solar sail needed for this.
>
The mass depends also on what you want to do with the solar sail.
If you need a really large one - or a smaller one, which is rather used for
energy production (to power the SEP-thrusters) and attitude control.

In this case the sail foils are solar cell foils thought to produce a
lot of electric energy to power
thrusters and the spacecraft operation.

Eric Drexlers idea of space fabricated and lighter solar sails might be
viable for a solar sail,
which is used for propulsion only. But it does not provide ample energy
for a power sucking
mission. A spacecraft which uses "Roller Reefing" with solar cells, is a
mobile solar power station,
able to provide more power as the ISS does now.

The sail foils used for the SSPS-spacecraft would just feature a mass of
32 kilograms.
Not so much, to give up the advantage of better production capacity on
Earth to save
a part of this 32 kg.

The solar foil material would be solar cell foil.
It is tested on The *Materials International Space Station
Experiment* ( **MISSE**). Figure 100 m2 per kilogram, 16,800
Watts/kg.

This foils for power production and attitude control would be available
in 1.5 micron CORIN polyimide thin film a-Si:H solar panels, 168 Watts/m2,
which would weigh about 32 kilograms for 3,120
square meters for a Ariane V-launcher-version of the SSPS-design and
produce
in this version 524 kWp DC electricity.
see also
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/welsome-space-consortium-solar-space.html

Best wishes.

Frank

Am 26.02.2011 04:57, schrieb Matt Gallimore:
>
> Forgive me for sounding too conventional,
>
no problem for me :-) .

> but how about this for asteroid
> mining:
> 1. Launch a rocket derived from shuttle external tank.
> 2. Assume it (with side mounted boosters) could send 25-30 ton of
> equipment to
> an asteroid.
>

How to finance this venture in terms of launch costs, if it is really
able to reach an asteroid
and return again?
You'll need at least 3 Ariane V launches, alone to get up your 30 tons
of equipment.
The Ariane V has a payload capacity of 9,6 to.
And you have to transport the mass of the boosters to the asteroid too.
There is a reason that the boosters are discarded after 20 seconds of
boosting,
when they are empty.

The SSPS should get away with about 500 kg - 1 ton of mass for the whole
mission
and with 1 single launch.

> 3. Mine a chondrite, which is high in water.
> 4. Bake mined material to remove volatiles.
> 5. Split volatiles between water and other stuff.
> 6. Split the water for H and O to go to the repective tanks in the
> rock. The
> other volatiles go to the nitrogen tank (mounted above the other two in a
> shuttle external tank design)
> 7. The remaining solids might be desiccated rock and powder which can
> be put
> into Santa Claus sized bags alongside the ship.
>
> Over the course of a few years, both liquid fuel tanks could be filled
> and many,
> many tons of asteroid solids bagged.
> A followup ship could take the rock bits and remove some iron and
> other metal to
> cast structural members. These standard parts could for the framework
> of a
> cylinder built around the first ship (now fueled). As the second ship
> gets
> restocked with volatiles, the scaffolding is built for slag.
>
> Pack the slag in the framework and fuse together.
>
I get you point. Framework (or a (inflatable) mold)
with a hull and loose materials filled into it might be
another way to get the radiation shield.
I did not quite understand what you want to fuse, (the slag or the
framework?)
and if you want to fuse the slag how you'll fuse it without harming the
framework.

Best wishes

Frank
>
> If you wanted a 20 meter ring for radiation shielding for transport,
> put a
> Bigelow inflatable inside and there you go.
>
> Solar sails can be used for bits, but the one shuttle derived vehicle
> could
> provide the plenty of manuevering thrust - alternatively lots of water
> for
> radiation sheilding.
>
Additional fuel for high thrust

On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Matt Gallimore wrote:

> Forgive me for sounding too conventional, but how about this for
> asteroid
> mining:
> 1. Launch a rocket derived from shuttle external tank.
>
Why do you think this is the best way to go?

> 2. Assume it (with side mounted boosters) could send 25-30 ton of
> equipment to
> an asteroid.
>
I've got a better idea. Figure out how much it could lift to an
asteroid orbit. Do the numbers.

> 3. Mine a chondrite, which is high in water.
> 4. Bake mined material to remove volatiles.
> 5. Split volatiles between water and other stuff.
> 6. Split the water for H and O to go to the repective tanks in the
> rock. The
> other volatiles go to the nitrogen tank (mounted above the other two
> in a
> shuttle external tank design)
> 7. The remaining solids might be desiccated rock and powder which
> can be put
> into Santa Claus sized bags alongside the ship.
>
> Over the course of a few years, both liquid fuel tanks could be
> filled and many,
> many tons of asteroid solids bagged.
> A followup ship could take the rock bits and remove some iron and
> other metal to
> cast structural members. These standard parts could for the
> framework of a
> cylinder built around the first ship (now fueled). As the second
> ship gets
> restocked with volatiles, the scaffolding is built for slag.
>
> Pack the slag in the framework and fuse together.
>
> If you wanted a 20 meter ring for radiation shielding for transport,
> put a
> Bigelow inflatable inside and there you go.
>
> Solar sails can be used for bits, but the one shuttle derived
> vehicle could
> provide the plenty of manuevering thrust - alternatively lots of
> water for
> radiation sheilding.
>
> From: Frank
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: brooksn
> Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 7:02:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: money is in short supply
>
> On 24.02.2011 21:51, brooksn wrote:
> >
> > Yeah even if that's the case it seems a little light. With those 5
> > tons you'll have to have the ability to land on an asteroid, analyze
> > the asteroids make up.
> >
> The mothership does not land on the asteroid, the daughter units do.
> The mothership provides only long distance transportation and
> recharging
> possibility to the daughters, evtl. also melting services
> since it could carry a laser to melt or cut out ice from the asteroid.
>
> The first missions would only extract materials and bring them back to
> the ISS or another deflatable laboratory in LEO. There the processing
> and separating processes and equipment have to be developed and
> tested.
> If they are developed the next mission goes back to the locations
> where
> the best suited ores have been found.
>
> At this near asteroid construction site the daughters mine the
> asteroid
> and unload the materials to the construction sites/molds.
> One single operation of one miner might need only two or three hours
> to
> scoop up the material and deliver it to the construction/separation
> site, which is freely floating in space. Than the next operation could
> start. This is the advantage of low gravity asteroid operations for
> habitat construction against gravity well construction. You can use
> relatively small equipment with efficient but weak propulsion and
> carry
> (Earth mass) tons of materials,
> which you couldn't even move on Earth.
>
> And you have more than one miner per mothership and can use more than
> one mothership to speed up the
> operation if needed.
>

If the dinosaurs had a space program, they'd still be here.

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.

On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Frank wrote:

> The sail foils used for the SSPS-spacecraft would just feature a
> mass of 32 kilograms.
> Not so much, to give up the advantage of better production capacity
> on Earth to save
> a part of this 32 kg.

Where does this figure come from? Including thin-film solar cells I
calculate that a system based on the Ikaros satellite would probably
weigh around 45 g/m^2 for the energy production alone. See http://space.alglobus.net/papers/SSI2010SSPpaper.pdf
for details.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't space-
faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs worked
pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll try mammals
this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and deflect
asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread beyond
Earth to ensure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

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.

Am 27.02.2011 07:16, schrieb Al Globus:
>
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Frank wrote:
>
> > The sail foils used for the SSPS-spacecraft would just feature a
> > mass of 32 kilograms.
> > Not so much, to give up the advantage of better production capacity
> > on Earth to save
> > a part of this 32 kg.
>
> Where does this figure come from? Including thin-film solar cells I
> calculate that a system based on the Ikaros satellite would probably
> weigh around 45 g/m^2 for the energy production alone. See
> http://space.alglobus.net/papers/SSI2010SSPpaper.pdf
> for details.
>

Hi Al,
I like Your paper. Seems that my design resembles Your
proposal of a thin film based
"One-Launch Operational PowerSat".
(for the One-Launch deployment part see US patent
application of a
"Solar-Sail-Launch-System" US 11614081 .)

The 32 kg are only the mass of the solar cell foils, not the structure.
The figures for the solar cell-foils came from Kevin Reed, who heads the
Welsom Space Consortium.
He claims that he can deliver thin film solar cell foils for one tenth
of the price
of regular solar cells for space applications.

Even as the SSPS looks like a Heliogyro, it isn't.
My design needs structure, which is heavier as the sail foil.
There are 12 telescoping masts instead none compared to
a Heliogyro and compared to the 4 (lighter) masts of a square sail.

The system needs also 3 electric motors and 2 electric winches per mast and
a foil roll which carries the solar cell foils and electric thrusters
with fuel.

The higher mass compared to a Heliogyro SSPS is the weakness of the System,
it's strength lies in the ability to provide fuelless high precision
attitude control,
station keeping and pointing adapted to and combined with Solar-electric
propulsion.
You could switch seamlessly from Roller-Reefing attitude control to
SEP-attitude control
using the same turning axles as shown on page 13 of the presentation
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/PresentationISSS2010V13.pdf.

With additional mobile dockingable thruster units,
http://solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig16.html
it is also possible, to refuel the
craft just by casting off the old thruster unit and dock in again a new one.
A separate tanker mothership could deliver those refueling daughter units.

The 500 kw available for this sample design would allow to power one
DS4G ion engine
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DSG4_ion_engine.html,
which allows exhaust speeds of about 210 km/sec., which is about 7 times
better as regular ion engines. So this engine would use only one seventh of
the fuel needed for the same thrust produced with a regular ion engine.

When the mobile main engine is switched off, 20 % of the systems capacity
would be also able to power the 100 kw solide state laser for power beaming
You mentioned in Your paper.

By the way, the system would be scale able by enhancing the number of
telescopic mast segments of each mast and/or the volume of the launcher
payload department.

I don't think, that a pure HelioGyro as in Your paper would work as a
GEO-SSPS.
As You know, JAXA had problems to steer the Ikaros solar sail spacecraft
because of the high momentum of the rotating foils, so they looked also
into decreasing the rotation speed.
I think, that because the blades of a HelioGyro SSPS have to point
allways towards Sun,
the Sun pressure would push them away of the Sun, if the rotating speed is
not pretty high.

Also the Craft, which orbits around Earth but has to point towards Sun has
to change it's attitude constantly.
So a pretty good attitude control System is so important, best a
fuelless one,
because a SSPS would stay years in orbit and need a lot of fuel delivered to
GEO over the years.

Best wishes

Frank

From: Al Globus alglobus@...

> Forgive me for sounding too conventional, but how about this
>forasteroidmining:
> 1. Launch a rocket derived from shuttle external tank.
>
"Why do you think this is the best way to go?"

Best? Just conventional, meaningusing mostly proven technology. The design
challenges for the launchwould bewithin near term capability. It couldlaunch
a significant at once. If the first stage were sent to the destination, the
fuel tanks could be used to for storage.

Could have mentioned the Energia as an example, but just went with more recent
heavy lift concept.

Someone pointed out the existing tool- Ariane 5 - would have much lower load
than my reference to an unbuilt one.

It seems that when talking about space settlement, we discuss projects that
require multiple technological developments which add layers of complexity to
projects. Sending a payload to an asteroid using a standard technology would
allow the missionto give greaterfocus on asteroid specific technologies. We
all know there is a lot of work to dodevelopingthem.

On Mar 3, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Matt Gallimore wrote:

>
> From: Al Globus alglobus@...
>
> > Forgive me for sounding too conventional, but how about this
> >for asteroid mining:
> > 1. Launch a rocket derived from shuttle external tank.
> >
> "Why do you think this is the best way to go?"
>
> Best? Just conventional, meaning using mostly proven technology.
> The design
> challenges for the launch would be within near term capability. It
> could launch
> a significant at once. If the first stage were sent to the
> destination, the
> fuel tanks could be used to for storage.
>
If you use the tank without the orbiter, presumably you will put
engines on the tank. Shuttle main engines? A new engine? In any
case, the loads change, a lot. The tank will require redesign to
handle the loads. Of course, you will need new avionics and a payload
shroud. As the tank production line has shut down, it will need to
be restarted.

Now let's consider the SpaceX claim they can build a 150 ton->orbit
vehicle in 5 years for $2.5 billion, fixed cost. They say this is
approximately 10x the Falcon 9, which is almost 10x of the Falcon 1.
That suggests the heavy lift vehicle would be 80-90 Falcon 1s
combined. The, the engine, tankage, module avionics, and coupling
hardware exist, are flying and the assembly lines are in operation.
Clustering provides manufacturing economies of scale. They think they
can scale 10x because they already did a 10x scale up from Falcon 1 to
Falcon 9.

I'd like to see an open competition, fixed price, for a heavy lift
vehicle.

>
> Could have mentioned the Energia as an example, but just went with
> more recent
> heavy lift concept.
>
> Someone pointed out the existing tool - Ariane 5 - would have much
> lower load
> than my reference to an unbuilt one.
>
> It seems that when talking about space settlement, we discuss
> projects that
> require multiple technological developments which add layers of
> complexity to
> projects. Sending a payload to an asteroid using a standard
> technology would
> allow the mission to give greater focus on asteroid specific
> technologies. We
> all know there is a lot of work to do developing them.
>

Quotes from Mike Griffin, former NASA Administrator:

"I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go
beyond," Washington Post.

"In the long run, a single-planet species will not survive," and "One
day, I don't know when, but one day, there will be more humans living
off the Earth than on it," Rolling Stone Magazine, 23 February 2006.

"For me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the
human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can
think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the
enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible," 2003 testimony
before Congress.

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.

> I'd like to see an open competition, fixed price, for a heavy lift
> vehicle.

Amen brother. Continuing to use Pentagon-style cost-plus contracting will result in, well, what it has always resulted in--defense industry robbery of the tax coffers, programs that routinely cost 3 times what they were originally planned for, and a monopolistic supplier industry that knows how to milk the system and dares Congress to challenge their way of doing business. For a space program that has to go begging every year, without the cachet among the voters that it once had, this is no longer a viable option (not to mention it should make voters suspicious of the enormous defense budgets we agree to each year).