From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Heat management, recycling, $, and space
ores

> Darren, etal.,
>

Tom, etal.,

> You are correct. I believe the force for a solar sail is on the order of 1
> newton per square KM. Launching and retrieving space craft will have much
> larger affects, especially if a catapult is used.
>

For the case of a habitat in the asteroid belt orbiting the sun with the
same face (mirror set) turned to the sun, the effect of incident solar wind
and sunlight can be considered mostly constant, and thus one can simply
compensate it by using a orbital speed smaller than that that would be
necessary in a pure vacuum with no additional forces. Instead of considering
just the gravitational force of the Sun, M*G/R^2 (where M is the mass of the
Sun and R the orbital radius of the habitat), you would actually to consider
M*G/R^2-F (where F is the outward force given by solar wind/sunlight) when
calculating the orbital speed. (Actually, the photomechanical effect of
sunlight would be negligible, although solar wind has to be considered.)

As for launching and retrieving spacecraft, I think that catapults should be
used only for launching craft from asteroids, moons and planets, where any
recoil effect would be vanishing small. Although there are scenarios where
maybe that would not be a problem. For example: imagine a habitat that
retrieves spaceships coming from all directions and launch spaceships to all
directions, all the time; in a long time range, all those launchings and
retrievals will pretty much cancel each other, and the orbit of the habitat
will be stable at large.

> The use of nuclear or solar powered electrical plasma rocket engines is
> perhaps the most efficient means of orbital modification over periods of
> many months.
>

Or perhaps electromagnetic mass drivers - it would even be a nice way to get
rid of the trash ;-). Even though the "heuristics" that I propose above can
greatly minimize the need of adjusting the trajectory of your habitat, there
will be occasions when some active compensation will be needed anyway. For
instance, when a mass coronal ejection hits the habitat, F in the equation
above will be much greater that the typical value, I guess...

> Cheers,
>

Cheers,

> Tom
[snikt]

Lucio Coelho

From: "Dr. Omni"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:05 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track

> From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Heat management, recycling, $, and space
> ores
>
> > Darren, etal.,
> >
> Tom, etal.,
>
> > You are correct. I believe the force for a solar sail is on the order of
1
> > newton per square KM. Launching and retrieving space craft will have
much
> > larger affects, especially if a catapult is used.
> >
> For the case of a habitat in the asteroid belt orbiting the sun with the
> same face (mirror set) turned to the sun, the effect of incident solar
wind
> and sunlight can be considered mostly constant, and thus one can simply
> compensate it by using a orbital speed smaller than that that would be
> necessary in a pure vacuum with no additional forces. Instead of
considering
> just the gravitational force of the Sun, M*G/R^2 (where M is the mass of
the
> Sun and R the orbital radius of the habitat), you would actually to
consider
> M*G/R^2-F (where F is the outward force given by solar wind/sunlight) when
> calculating the orbital speed. (Actually, the photomechanical effect of
> sunlight would be negligible, although solar wind has to be considered.)
>
> As for launching and retrieving spacecraft, I think that catapults should
be
> used only for launching craft from asteroids, moons and planets, where any
> recoil effect would be vanishing small. Although there are scenarios where
> maybe that would not be a problem. For example: imagine a habitat that
> retrieves spaceships coming from all directions and launch spaceships to
all
> directions, all the time; in a long time range, all those launchings and
> retrievals will pretty much cancel each other, and the orbit of the
habitat
> will be stable at large.
>
Tom - The use of catapults or a rotating tether would be far more economical
then the expenditure of rocket fuel. If the colony is near a magnetic field
(e.g. earth, Jupiter, etc.) then an electrically charged tether can be used
to restore the orbit.

> > The use of nuclear or solar powered electrical plasma rocket engines is
> > perhaps the most efficient means of orbital modification over periods of
> > many months.
> >
> Or perhaps electromagnetic mass drivers - it would even be a nice way to
get
> rid of the trash ;-). Even though the "heuristics" that I propose above
can
> greatly minimize the need of adjusting the trajectory of your habitat,
there
> will be occasions when some active compensation will be needed anyway. For
> instance, when a mass coronal ejection hits the habitat, F in the equation
> above will be much greater that the typical value, I guess...
>
Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must be restored
from some source such as an asteroid.
Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.

A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless carefully launched
into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than the colony.
Aiming back, along the path of travel, would be best.

Larry Kellogg here for Lunar Prospector, the Moon, Mars, and Beyond.
Greetings from California USA
Just finished reading all 50 posts and will add more later (now after
midnight local)

Joined to learn more about Orbital Habitats as I have been answering
replies from my last post to the lunar-update list that relayed some
information I found about the contest at Ames for 6-12th grade
students to get them interested in new ideas, specifically building a
Space Settlement.
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/

That had propted a request for more information which pointed to
- "The High Frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill,
http://www.ssi.org/high-frontier.html
and to the Space Studies Institute.
http://www.ssi.org/catalog.html

and I am on board. Have passed the refence for this egroup to some
and will do so again for those that have shown an interest and
replied to my posting about the Space Settelers contest (some 3000+
lunar-update listeners interested in the Moon and Space)

Very interesting. Will be back later.

Regards

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
>
> From: "Dr. Omni"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:05 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
>
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Heat management, recycling, $,
and space
> > ores
> >
> > > Darren, etal.,
> > >
> > Tom, etal.,
> >
> > > You are correct. I believe the force for a solar sail is on the
order of 1 newton per square KM. Launching and retrieving space craft
will have much larger affects, especially if a catapult is used.
> > >
> > For the case of a habitat in the asteroid belt orbiting the sun
with the same face (mirror set) turned to the sun, the effect of
incident solar wind and sunlight can be considered mostly constant,
and thus one can simply compensate it by using a orbital speed
smaller than that that would be necessary in a pure vacuum with no
additional forces. Instead of considering just the gravitational
force of the Sun, M*G/R^2 (where M is the mass of the Sun and R the
orbital radius of the habitat), you would actually to consider
M*G/R^2-F (where F is the outward force given by solar wind/sunlight)
when calculating the orbital speed. (Actually, the photomechanical
effect of sunlight would be negligible, although solar wind has to be
considered.)
> >

When Pioneer 12 was orbiting Venus we felt the force of the Solar
Wind and had to make adjustments when the antenna acted as a sail.

> > As for launching and retrieving spacecraft, I think that
catapults should be used only for launching craft from asteroids,
moons and planets, where any recoil effect would be vanishing small.
Although there are scenarios where maybe that would not be a problem.
For example: imagine a habitat that retrieves spaceships coming from
all directions and launch spaceships to all directions, all the time;
in a long time range, all those launchings and retrievals will pretty
much cancel each other, and the orbit of the habitat will be stable
at large.
> >
> Tom - The use of catapults or a rotating tether would be far more
economical then the expenditure of rocket fuel. If the colony is
near a magnetic field (e.g. earth, Jupiter, etc.) then an
electrically charged tether can be used to restore the orbit.
>
> > > The use of nuclear or solar powered electrical plasma rocket
engines is perhaps the most efficient means of orbital modification
over periods of many months.
> > >
> > Or perhaps electromagnetic mass drivers - it would even be a nice
way to get rid of the trash ;-). Even though the "heuristics" that I
propose above can greatly minimize the need of adjusting the
trajectory of your habitat, there will be occasions when some active
compensation will be needed anyway. For instance, when a mass coronal
ejection hits the habitat, F in the equation above will be much
greater that the typical value, I guess...
> >
> Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must be
restored from some source such as an asteroid.
> Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.
>
> A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless carefully
launched into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than
the colony. Aiming back, along the path of travel, would be best.

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track

[snikt]
> Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must be
restored
> from some source such as an asteroid.

Indeed.

> Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.

Not necessarily. I'm kind of skeptical about the common notion of a
*completely* enclosed ecosystem in all space habitats. The fact is that
habitats anywhere in the solar system will have basically any kind of raw
material at a range of a few months trip, and also would have commerce (and
exchange of materials) with other habitats and planetary colonies.
Therefore, I think that a 100% efficient recycling will be needed (and
effectively implemented) only in habitats for interstellar trips and other
applications that need prolonged isolation.

> A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless carefully
launched
> into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than the colony.

It depends on how fast you launch your rocks. If they are thrown at the
local escape velocity relatively to the Sun, then you can be sure that your
rock will leave the Solar System and you'll never see it again. However,
while the rock is still crossing the Solar System at blazing speed, it could
be a threat to spacecraft in general (including other colonies). Therefore,
I have to concede that the use of mass drivers would have to be carefully
planed.

[snikt]
Lucio Coelho

From: "Dr. Omni"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track

> From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 3:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
>
> [snikt]
> > Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must be
> restored
> > from some source such as an asteroid.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.
>
> Not necessarily. I'm kind of skeptical about the common notion of a
> *completely* enclosed ecosystem in all space habitats. The fact is that
> habitats anywhere in the solar system will have basically any kind of raw
> material at a range of a few months trip, and also would have commerce
(and
> exchange of materials) with other habitats and planetary colonies.
> Therefore, I think that a 100% efficient recycling will be needed (and
> effectively implemented) only in habitats for interstellar trips and other
> applications that need prolonged isolation.

Tom - 100 % recycling is a worthy goal at this point in time, espcially
since such technologies would also have application to earth, which is also
a space colony :-)

Perhaps we can only achieve 99 or 95%, I don't know since I have yet to see
a well researched study on this topic.
Most plastics can be reduced to a handfull that can be sorted and recycled.
Compounds containing chlorine can and should be banned since they are not
natural and produce poison gas when burned.
Organic matter can be recycled naturally.
Our wide variety of alloys could be reduce to a handfull of alloys to
facilitate recycling.
Chemicals that are not organic ??? perhaps they should be banned if not
recyclable?

What concerns do you have for recycling - any particular product or
compound?

Regards,

Tom

>
> > A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless carefully
> launched
> > into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than the colony.
>
> It depends on how fast you launch your rocks. If they are thrown at the
> local escape velocity relatively to the Sun, then you can be sure that
your
> rock will leave the Solar System and you'll never see it again. However,
> while the rock is still crossing the Solar System at blazing speed, it
could
> be a threat to spacecraft in general (including other colonies).
Therefore,

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
>
> From: "Dr. Omni"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
>
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 3:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
> >
> > [snikt]
> > > Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must
be
> > restored
> > > from some source such as an asteroid.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.
> >
> > Not necessarily. I'm kind of skeptical about the common notion of
a
> > *completely* enclosed ecosystem in all space habitats. The fact
is that
> > habitats anywhere in the solar system will have basically any
kind of raw
> > material at a range of a few months trip, and also would have
commerce
> (and
> > exchange of materials) with other habitats and planetary colonies.
> > Therefore, I think that a 100% efficient recycling will be needed
(and
> > effectively implemented) only in habitats for interstellar trips
and other
> > applications that need prolonged isolation.
>
> Tom - 100 % recycling is a worthy goal at this point in time,
espcially
> since such technologies would also have application to earth, which
is also
> a space colony :-)
>
> Perhaps we can only achieve 99 or 95%, I don't know since I have
yet to see
> a well researched study on this topic.
> Most plastics can be reduced to a handfull that can be sorted and
recycled.
> Compounds containing chlorine can and should be banned since they
are not
> natural and produce poison gas when burned.
> Organic matter can be recycled naturally.
> Our wide variety of alloys could be reduce to a handfull of alloys
to
> facilitate recycling.
> Chemicals that are not organic ??? perhaps they should be banned
if not
> recyclable?
>
> What concerns do you have for recycling - any particular product or
> compound?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
>
> > > A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless
carefully
> > launched
> > > into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than
the colony.
> >
> > It depends on how fast you launch your rocks. If they are thrown
at the
> > local escape velocity relatively to the Sun, then you can be sure
that
> your
> > rock will leave the Solar System and you'll never see it again.
However,
> > while the rock is still crossing the Solar System at blazing
speed, it
> could
> > be a threat to spacecraft in general (including other colonies).
> Therefore,
> > I have to concede that the use of mass drivers would have to be
carefully
> > planed.
> >
> > [snikt]
> > Lucio Coelho
> >
The Launch of Lunar Prospector to the Moon in January of 1998 was on
a Holeman transfer orbit. The Trans Lunar Injection module was
separated from the spacecraft after it had done its job and slowed
slightly with some nitrogen gas. Its return trajectory put it over
the ocean about the same time a spent third stage rocket was
mysteriously destroyed in about the same place. :< What goes up may
come down and a lot of what is up may come down and building cities
in the sky may add to a lot of spent rocket stages coming down. Hope
all of our hardware is included in the flight plans. Will see the
Mir come down probably next year and Iridium satellites soon. May
play a role in public opinion.

Larry

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track

[snikt]
> Perhaps we can only achieve 99 or 95%, I don't know since I have yet to
see
> a well researched study on this topic.

Most likely. No recycling is perfect. The "100%" that I used in my previous
message was just a manner of speaking.

[snikt]
> What concerns do you have for recycling - any particular product or
> compound?
>

I just think that recycling should not be dogmatically applied to everything
when you live in a lifeless environment. On Earth, we simply have no place
to drop our garbage without eliminating completely the possibility of
ecological problems, and therefore recycling usually is the best option.
(Although even this concept is sometimes contested. I remember some studies
showing that simply burying garbage is cheaper - even considering
environmental costs - than recycling, for most types of trash.) In space,
however, you have a vast range of possibilities of getting rid of your trash
without using recycling and at the same time without causing *any* damage to
the internal biosphere of your habitat. For example: you can simply dump
everything that cannot be recycled (or that has a recycling process that is
not economically advantageous) in a dirtball orbiting your habitat; the
biosphere inside the habitat will continue to live happily and healthily,
thanks, and you'll spend less money/effort/time/energy...

> Regards,
>

Regards,

> Tom
[snikt]

Lucio Coelho

I see, Dr. Omni.

What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of recyclable
materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially if the costs
of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.

Cheers,

Tom

From: "Dr. Omni"
To:
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track

> From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 4:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
>
> [snikt]
> > Perhaps we can only achieve 99 or 95%, I don't know since I have yet to
> see
> > a well researched study on this topic.
>
> Most likely. No recycling is perfect. The "100%" that I used in my
previous
> message was just a manner of speaking.
>
> [snikt]
> > What concerns do you have for recycling - any particular product or
> > compound?
> >
> I just think that recycling should not be dogmatically applied to
everything
> when you live in a lifeless environment. On Earth, we simply have no place
> to drop our garbage without eliminating completely the possibility of
> ecological problems, and therefore recycling usually is the best option.
> (Although even this concept is sometimes contested. I remember some
studies
> showing that simply burying garbage is cheaper - even considering
> environmental costs - than recycling, for most types of trash.) In space,
> however, you have a vast range of possibilities of getting rid of your
trash
> without using recycling and at the same time without causing *any* damage
to
> the internal biosphere of your habitat. For example: you can simply dump
> everything that cannot be recycled (or that has a recycling process that
is

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:
>
> From: "Dr. Omni"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:05 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Keeping your habitat on the track
>
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"

> > > The use of nuclear or solar powered electrical plasma rocket engines is
> > > perhaps the most efficient means of orbital modification over periods of
> > > many months.

Compared to ion drives they are a lot more efficient of power. Always
assuming anyone can get them to work (they run really HOT).

> > Or perhaps electromagnetic mass drivers - it would even be a nice way to
> get
> > rid of the trash ;-). Even though the "heuristics" that I propose above
> can
> > greatly minimize the need of adjusting the trajectory of your habitat,
> there
> > will be occasions when some active compensation will be needed anyway. For
> > instance, when a mass coronal ejection hits the habitat, F in the equation
> > above will be much greater that the typical value, I guess...
> >
> Tom - The expenditure of mass for propulsion means that it must be restored
> from some source such as an asteroid.
> Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.

Probably. However when you consider the thousands of tonnes needed to
make
a habitat the costs of mass probably won't be so great- there's no way
to build a habitat if the cost is $10,000/lb. Does anyone have a rough
figure
on the underlying costs of launching mass from the moon or an asteroid
to
HEO? I suppose mass launchers get close to pennies a pound. It must cost
more than that on earth.

> A rock launched from the colony may oneday return unless carefully launched
> into an orbit that results in a slower orbital velocity than the colony.
> Aiming back, along the path of travel, would be best.

Yes, actually to a first approximation, firing trash out doesn't work.
In LEO some of the astronauts remark about being surrounded by
the 'moons of uranus' or some such phrase- the toilet vented to
the outside...

This wasn't a short term thing...

For a small change of orbit, the new orbit takes almost
exactly the same time as the old orbit and intersects in two places.

Tom Tucker wrote:
> What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of recyclable
> materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially if the
costs
> of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.

However, as Ian said, space colonies will never be a reality if it costs
$10,000/KG to transport your materials to the right place. In other words,
they'll only be a reality if built with materials gathered from the Moon and
the asteroids, a case where the transportation cost will be probably
something around, let say, $0.50/Kg.

Maybe we are talking about two different animals. If you're talking about
relatively small habitats completely built with materials transported from
Earth to LEO, as ISS, then I completely agree that *everything* would have
to be recycled till the last drop, since the cost of recycling something, no
matter how expensive is the process, will certainly be less expensive than
the $10,000/KG transportation cost. But if you're talking about huge
habitats many hundreds or thousands of meters long and weighting millions of
tons, then certainly they were built with lunar and asteroidal materials
transported at a few pennies per pound; in *this* scenario (the one that I
was referring to), there will be many recycling processes that will be far
more expensive than simply getting rid of your garbage, and this last option
will be the chosen one.

> Cheers,

Cheers,

> Tom

Lucio

Recycling is still a noble and realistic goal.

Since we have no idea when costs to obtain or to refine materials from
asteroids will drop to the level where we could afford to jettison or
discard consumables, it is difficult to project at what point what should be
recycled or not.

For now, those interested in settling space, and also Mars, are well advised
to study recycling technologies so that whatever improvements that may be
needed will be ready when needed in the future.
Implementing relevant technologies on earth today and tomorrow will help the
technologies mature so that they will be stable for use in space when
needed.

One key aspect to keep in mind is that the secret to recycling is to not
manufacture goods that can't be easily recycled, right? Compounds
containing chlorine, (e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbons) for example, would have
to be disposed of separately with disposal costs incorporated in to the
costs of the new product. Insisting that manufacturers make provisions to
recycle their products, whether they be automobiles of space ships, is also
a good idea.

Plastics should be limited to a handful that can be readily recycled. Same
for metallic alloys.

If the above simple rules are followed, recycling will be a breeze on earth
as well as in space.

Cheers,

Tom

From: "Dr. Omni"
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:00 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track

> Tom Tucker wrote:
> > What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of recyclable
> > materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially if the
> costs
> > of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.
>
> However, as Ian said, space colonies will never be a reality if it costs
> $10,000/KG to transport your materials to the right place. In other words,
> they'll only be a reality if built with materials gathered from the Moon
and
> the asteroids, a case where the transportation cost will be probably
> something around, let say, $0.50/Kg.
>
> Maybe we are talking about two different animals. If you're talking about
> relatively small habitats completely built with materials transported from
> Earth to LEO, as ISS, then I completely agree that *everything* would have
> to be recycled till the last drop, since the cost of recycling something,
no
> matter how expensive is the process, will certainly be less expensive than
> the $10,000/KG transportation cost. But if you're talking about huge
> habitats many hundreds or thousands of meters long and weighting millions
of
> tons, then certainly they were built with lunar and asteroidal materials
> transported at a few pennies per pound; in *this* scenario (the one that I
> was referring to), there will be many recycling processes that will be far
> more expensive than simply getting rid of your garbage, and this last
option

From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]

What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of recyclable
materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially if the costs
of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.

We probably won't have any space colonists for as long as lift costs stay
where they are now, but your point is still valid. Even if we assume two
orders of magnitude reduction, an awful lot of recycling would be cheaper
than $100/Kg. Another factor is that energy costs in a space colony are apt
to be lower, due to the continuous availability of sunlight.

Rgds,
Mike Combs

From:
Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@...]

What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of recyclable
materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially if the costs
of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.

We probably won't have any space colonists for as long as lift costs stay where they are now, but your point is still valid. Even if we assume two orders of magnitude reduction, an awful lot of recycling would be cheaper than $100/Kg. Another factor is that energy costs in a space colony are apt to be lower, due to the continuous availability of sunlight.

Rgds,
Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"

wrote:
> Recycling is still a noble and realistic goal.
> Since we have no idea when costs to obtain or to refine materials
>from
> asteroids will drop to the level where we could afford to jettison
>or
> discard consumables, it is difficult to project at what point what
>should be
> recycled or not. For now, those interested in settling space, and
>also Mars, are well
> advised to study recycling technologies so that whatever
>improvements that may be
> needed will be ready when needed in the future.
> Implementing relevant technologies on earth today and tomorrow will
>help the
> technologies mature so that they will be stable for use in space
>when
> needed. One key aspect to keep in mind is that the secret to
>recycling is to not
> manufacture goods that can't be easily recycled, right? Compounds
> containing chlorine, (e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbons) for example,
>would have
> to be disposed of separately with disposal costs incorporated in to
>the
> costs of the new product. Insisting that manufacturers make
>provisions to
> recycle their products, whether they be automobiles of space ships,
>is also
> a good idea. Plastics should be limited to a handful that can be
>readily recycled. Same
> for metallic alloys.
> If the above simple rules are followed, recycling will be a breeze
>on earth
> as well as in space.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom

> From: "Dr. Omni"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:00 AM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track

> > Tom Tucker wrote:
> > > What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of
recyclable
> > > materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially
if the
> > costs of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.
> > However, as Ian said, space colonies will never be a reality if it
costs
> > $10,000/KG to transport your materials to the right place. In
other words,
> > they'll only be a reality if built with materials gathered from
the Moon
> >and the asteroids, a case where the transportation cost will be
probably
> > something around, let say, $0.50/Kg.
> >
> > Maybe we are talking about two different animals. If you're
talking about
> > relatively small habitats completely built with materials
transported from
> > Earth to LEO, as ISS, then I completely agree that *everything*
would have
> > to be recycled till the last drop, since the cost of recycling
something, no
> > matter how expensive is the process, will certainly be less
expensive than
> > the $10,000/KG transportation cost. But if you're talking about
huge
> > habitats many hundreds or thousands of meters long and weighting
millions
> of tons, then certainly they were built with lunar and asteroidal
materials
> > transported at a few pennies per pound; in *this* scenario (the
one that I
> > was referring to), there will be many recycling processes that
will be far
> > more expensive than simply getting rid of your garbage, and this
last
> option will be the chosen one.
> > Cheers,
> > Lucio

Only too true Lucio, at 10,000/Kg we are not going to have a colony in
orbit any time soon. Even if all the raw materials were obtained from
the Moon or from asteroids we would still need to ship the people,
unless you are intending some kind of Adam and Eve scenario. Shipping
equipment that can not at first be made on site and the construction
crews, the people to form the first generation and the consumables
needed to kick start everything at 10,000/Kg is going to be a bill
that nobody is going to want to touch. Sorry Tom but he right 100%
recycling only makes sense if you are in a small habitat with limited
resources and few reserves and even then the concept of 100% is not
one that is going to happen, even the best systems will lose a tiny
fraction and over a long time line you will need a top up. Of course
the hook there is "a long time", how long? What kind of loss over
time are you looking at and how does that relate to your total
reserves?

With launch costs of $10,000/Kg we will not have the kind of habitat
that I think the average man on the street is going to want to live
in. If the best you can do is a cobbled together collection of cast
off fuel tanks or even a custom built habitat that is only 500 metres
long and 50 metres wide, then you don't have a home, you have
comfortable factory for long term, live in workers, something a little
better than a really big oil rig, without the weather. On the other
hand if you have a habitat a few kilometre long that has a population
of 10,000 or more, you have the basis of a new nation and a place to
live and maybe even retire to. If your habitat masses at say, 50,000
Kg's you will far more concerned at the loss of a few hundred Kg's of
mass than if you lived in a habitat that massed a few billion tonnes.
Either way I'm not sure that you would be too worried about 100%
recycling (or as close to it as you can get), the reason, simple, a
small habitat is most likely going to be some kind of orbiting
factory, with a resupply schedule and a constant input and output of
mass. At the other end of the scale a very large habitat will be able
to resupply any mass loss at small cost (if it couldn't then it
wouldn't have been built in the first place). The strange thing about
this is that the large habitat while the best able to cope with a
constant, modest mass loss would most likely be the one with an
efficient recycle system, I would guess that it would be the one that
you mentioned Lucio, those things that can be recycled easily would be
and then you would just heat up everything else until it broke down to
its basic elements and was ionised then separate and store until
needed.

The other problem with what you suggest Tom is if you regulate the
production goods too much then you will start to kill off the
incentive to innovate. Don't get me wrong, planning on how to dispose
of something at the end of its service life is a good idea and one
worth pursuing, especially in the context of a habitat but if you can
turn anything back into the elements that make it up then there is no
reason to prohibit their use. The energy needed to reduce and ionise
everything is considerable but as Mike points out, energy is one thing
habitats shouldn't be short of.

The final point I would like to make is a simple one, unless the
habitat has a completely closed economy and allows no visitors, in
other words is a totally sealed system, then there is going to be a
constant exchange of mass as goods, raw materials, people, food
stuffs, etc pass back and forth. There is always going to be a need
for a habitats inhabitants to go outside, opening airlocks and losing
small amounts of air in the process, then there will be the exhausts
of rockets and even the slow loss of mass as the rocks/metal and such
inside the habitat react with the inside biosphere, a continual
exchange of mass and a slow loss as water/air is absorbed and locked
up in places and in ways that the planners never thought of. On a
large habitat this exchange, both internal in chemical reactions and
external in the form of trade and travel is going to be considerable
and makes nonsense of the idea of 100% recycling. You really should
think of any habitat as a process, with inputs and outputs, what you
have to do is make sure the outputs don't exceed your inputs and you
will be fine.

Darren Brown

Darren, and all interested,

We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I said that 100%
recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve 100% at
all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclable garbage
such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicality of
making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen, and
chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly a easy as
melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding them into another
plastic product.

Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have been said by a
toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materials rather
than durable and recyclable materials.

Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do you think
would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?

Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc. This is a
given.

What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?

I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no be recycled
except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutes and
which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozone in the water
may do the trick.

In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do you very best
or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now and next
confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?

Cheers,

Tom

From: "Darren Brown"
To:
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"

wrote:
> Recycling is still a noble and realistic goal.
> Since we have no idea when costs to obtain or to refine materials
>from
> asteroids will drop to the level where we could afford to jettison
>or
> discard consumables, it is difficult to project at what point what
>should be
> recycled or not. For now, those interested in settling space, and
>also Mars, are well
> advised to study recycling technologies so that whatever
>improvements that may be
> needed will be ready when needed in the future.
> Implementing relevant technologies on earth today and tomorrow will
>help the
> technologies mature so that they will be stable for use in space
>when
> needed. One key aspect to keep in mind is that the secret to
>recycling is to not
> manufacture goods that can't be easily recycled, right? Compounds
> containing chlorine, (e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbons) for example,
>would have
> to be disposed of separately with disposal costs incorporated in to
>the
> costs of the new product. Insisting that manufacturers make
>provisions to
> recycle their products, whether they be automobiles of space ships,
>is also
> a good idea. Plastics should be limited to a handful that can be
>readily recycled. Same
> for metallic alloys.
> If the above simple rules are followed, recycling will be a breeze
>on earth
> as well as in space.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom

> From: "Dr. Omni"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:00 AM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track

> > Tom Tucker wrote:
> > > What many people don't realize is that garbage, if made of
recyclable
> > > materials, may be very valuable to space colonists, especially
if the
> > costs of obtaining more of whatever is still around $10,000/KG.
> > However, as Ian said, space colonies will never be a reality if it
costs
> > $10,000/KG to transport your materials to the right place. In
other words,
> > they'll only be a reality if built with materials gathered from
the Moon
> >and the asteroids, a case where the transportation cost will be
probably
> > something around, let say, $0.50/Kg.
> >
> > Maybe we are talking about two different animals. If you're
talking about
> > relatively small habitats completely built with materials
transported from
> > Earth to LEO, as ISS, then I completely agree that *everything*
would have
> > to be recycled till the last drop, since the cost of recycling
something, no
> > matter how expensive is the process, will certainly be less
expensive than
> > the $10,000/KG transportation cost. But if you're talking about
huge
> > habitats many hundreds or thousands of meters long and weighting
millions
> of tons, then certainly they were built with lunar and asteroidal
materials
> > transported at a few pennies per pound; in *this* scenario (the
one that I
> > was referring to), there will be many recycling processes that
will be far
> > more expensive than simply getting rid of your garbage, and this
last
> option will be the chosen one.
> > Cheers,
> > Lucio

Only too true Lucio, at 10,000/Kg we are not going to have a colony in
orbit any time soon. Even if all the raw materials were obtained from
the Moon or from asteroids we would still need to ship the people,
unless you are intending some kind of Adam and Eve scenario. Shipping
equipment that can not at first be made on site and the construction
crews, the people to form the first generation and the consumables
needed to kick start everything at 10,000/Kg is going to be a bill
that nobody is going to want to touch. Sorry Tom but he right 100%
recycling only makes sense if you are in a small habitat with limited
resources and few reserves and even then the concept of 100% is not
one that is going to happen, even the best systems will lose a tiny
fraction and over a long time line you will need a top up. Of course
the hook there is "a long time", how long? What kind of loss over
time are you looking at and how does that relate to your total
reserves?

With launch costs of $10,000/Kg we will not have the kind of habitat
that I think the average man on the street is going to want to live
in. If the best you can do is a cobbled together collection of cast
off fuel tanks or even a custom built habitat that is only 500 metres
long and 50 metres wide, then you don't have a home, you have
comfortable factory for long term, live in workers, something a little
better than a really big oil rig, without the weather. On the other
hand if you have a habitat a few kilometre long that has a population
of 10,000 or more, you have the basis of a new nation and a place to
live and maybe even retire to. If your habitat masses at say, 50,000
Kg's you will far more concerned at the loss of a few hundred Kg's of
mass than if you lived in a habitat that massed a few billion tonnes.
Either way I'm not sure that you would be too worried about 100%
recycling (or as close to it as you can get), the reason, simple, a
small habitat is most likely going to be some kind of orbiting
factory, with a resupply schedule and a constant input and output of
mass. At the other end of the scale a very large habitat will be able
to resupply any mass loss at small cost (if it couldn't then it
wouldn't have been built in the first place). The strange thing about
this is that the large habitat while the best able to cope with a
constant, modest mass loss would most likely be the one with an
efficient recycle system, I would guess that it would be the one that
you mentioned Lucio, those things that can be recycled easily would be
and then you would just heat up everything else until it broke down to
its basic elements and was ionised then separate and store until
needed.

The other problem with what you suggest Tom is if you regulate the
production goods too much then you will start to kill off the
incentive to innovate. Don't get me wrong, planning on how to dispose
of something at the end of its service life is a good idea and one
worth pursuing, especially in the context of a habitat but if you can
turn anything back into the elements that make it up then there is no
reason to prohibit their use. The energy needed to reduce and ionise
everything is considerable but as Mike points out, energy is one thing
habitats shouldn't be short of.

The final point I would like to make is a simple one, unless the
habitat has a completely closed economy and allows no visitors, in
other words is a totally sealed system, then there is going to be a
constant exchange of mass as goods, raw materials, people, food
stuffs, etc pass back and forth. There is always going to be a need
for a habitats inhabitants to go outside, opening airlocks and losing
small amounts of air in the process, then there will be the exhausts
of rockets and even the slow loss of mass as the rocks/metal and such
inside the habitat react with the inside biosphere, a continual
exchange of mass and a slow loss as water/air is absorbed and locked
up in places and in ways that the planners never thought of. On a
large habitat this exchange, both internal in chemical reactions and
external in the form of trade and travel is going to be considerable
and makes nonsense of the idea of 100% recycling. You really should
think of any habitat as a process, with inputs and outputs, what you
have to do is make sure the outputs don't exceed your inputs and you
will be fine.

Darren Brown

Greetings from downunder Tom,
(of course it's only downunder from the perspective of those in the
North ;-))

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:

> Darren, and all interested,
>
> We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I said that 100%
> recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve
> 100% at
> all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclable
> garbage
> such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicality
> of
> making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen, and
> chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly a easy as
>
> melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding them into
> another
> plastic product.
>
> Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have been
> said by a
> toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materials
> rather
> than durable and recyclable materials.
>
> Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do you
> think
> would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?
>
> Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc.
> This is a
> given.
>
> What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?
>
> I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no be
> recycled
> except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutes
> and
> which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozone in the
> water
> may do the trick.
>
> In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do you very
> best
> or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now and next
> confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>

You may be right, perhaps we are talking about different things or at
lest taking you too literally. Let me try to state my option.

We have to consider what we mean when talking about a habitat, first
there is the small (relatively) orbiting workshop/factory that may have
a number of long term, by that I mean as long as several years,
residents acting as a workforce. I hesitate to call this a habitat,
its more like a station but given that such a structure would most
probably only happen where the cost to orbit is lower than today but
still too high to allow the building of a large habitat of the type
envisioned by most members of this forum, the cost of getting mass to it
would make a stringent recycling/conservation program very attractive.
Such a station would be used to only for high value work, this could be
military, scientific, industrial or perhaps just national ego. In this
scenario the population would be disciplined and motivated to follow
whatever conservation rules are put in place by whoever is running the
place. It is very likely that if it was economically sound then total
recycling (or as close as possible) would be followed but if the cost of
the equipment either in shipping or running was too high then I expect
they would just throw the stuff overboard and resupply as needed, of
course they may send the trash back to Earth instead of jettisoning it,
not because of concern for what happens to it but to keep it from
upsetting any outside projects.

Now if we scale up to the kind of structure that could hold a large
population that intend to make it home with shopkeepers, teachers,
babies, churches, gardeners, doctors and all the other occupations you
need in a living city, then we also need a way to orbit that is very
cheap and then we need a way build and work with the huge mass involved
in such an object. With transport so cheap and mass sitting around just
waiting for you tap, basic economics is going to play a huge part in how
the habitat works. Money doesnt just make the world go round it also
works with habitats, people need a special reason to do something in an
expensive way rather than a cheap way, be it religion, ideology,
security, ego or because they are forced to. Unless it is cheaper to
recycle something than to throw it away and get new ones, people wont
do it. Here on Earth we can say that you need to include the cost to
the environment in any cost analysis but in space that becomes
irrelevant, after all, what environment? With some of the processes
going on in a habitat recycling becomes the best way to go, the movement
of organic material is one example and in others the elements in the
trash may have an intrinsic value that makes a recycling process the
most economical or have other significant factors involved. But over
all it comes down to money and convenience and in rare cases some other
special factor. Going back a few posts somebody pointed out that mass,
any mass would be important to the inhabitant of a habitat because of
the cost of lifting it to orbit, this is totally wrong, if the cost was
that high then this kind of large habitat would not be there for it to
be an issue.

A final point, if you were using a fusion torch (not sure what that is
but I get the idea) or a very concentrated beam of sunlight or any other
kind of energy source to rip your trash into a plasma then what you will
have is not a container of mixed gas and soot. This was raised sometime
ago and I have read a little about since and it seems that you can use
magnetic fields to sort out the charged ions from the plasma and then
store your output as separate elements. Why dont we do that now with
our garbage? Simple, the cost of building the equipment, the cost of
the energy and I dont think anybody has a fully working model yet but
really this is just engineering and in space the main cost, the energy,
should be very cheap. Mind you, I really dont think that many things
would need this kind of work and in general what they will have in a
large habitat is limited recycling and a lot of new material entering
the system with about the same amount going out. I just hope that most
of what goes out is in the form of cargo.

All of this Tom is not to say that I disagree with the idea of
recycling, I just know how hard it is to get people to do the things
that they should do as opposed to what they want to do.

And thank you for an interesting discussion, some of the things I've
seen in this forum have made me scratch my head and think, always worth
doing.

Darren Brown

(of course it's only downunder from the perspective of those in theNorth ;-))

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:
Darren, and all interested,
We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I saidthat 100%
recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve100% at
all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclablegarbage
such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicalityof
making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen,and
chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly aeasy as
melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding theminto another
plastic product.
Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have beensaid by a
toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materialsrather
than durable and recyclable materials.
Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do youthink
would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?
Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc.This is a
given.
What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?
I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no berecycled
except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutesand
which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozonein the water
may do the trick.
In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do youvery best
or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now andnext
confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?
Cheers,
Tom

You may be right, perhaps we are talking about different things or at lesttaking you too literally. Let me try to state my option.
We have to consider what we mean when talking about a habitat, firstthere is the small (relatively) orbiting workshop/factory that may havea number of long term, by that I mean as long as several years, residentsacting as a workforce. I hesitate to call this a habitat, its morelike a station but given that such a structure would most probably onlyhappen where the cost to orbit is lower than today but still too high toallow the building of a large habitat of the type envisioned by most membersof this forum, the cost of getting mass to it would make a stringent recycling/conservationprogram very attractive. Such a station would be used to only forhigh value work, this could be military, scientific, industrial or perhapsjust national ego. In this scenario the population would be disciplinedand motivated to follow whatever conservation rules are put in place bywhoever is running the place. It is very likely that if it was economicallysound then total recycling (or as close as possible) would be followedbut if the cost of the equipment either in shipping or running was toohigh then I expect they would just throw the stuff overboard and resupplyas needed, of course they may send the trash back to Earth instead of jettisoningit, not because of concern for what happens to it but to keep it from upsettingany outside projects.
Now if we scale up to the kind of structure that could hold a largepopulation that intend to make it home with shopkeepers, teachers, babies,churches, gardeners, doctors and all the other occupations you need ina living city, then we also need a way to orbit that is very cheap andthen we need a way build and work with the huge mass involved in such anobject. With transport so cheap and mass sitting around just waitingfor you tap, basic economics is going to play a huge part in how the habitatworks. Money doesnt just make the world go round it also works withhabitats, people need a special reason to do something in an expensiveway rather than a cheap way, be it religion, ideology, security, ego orbecause they are forced to. Unless it is cheaper to recycle somethingthan to throw it away and get new ones, people wont do it. Hereon Earth we can say that you need to include the cost to the environmentin any cost analysis but in space that becomes irrelevant, after all, whatenvironment? With some of the processes going on in a habitat recyclingbecomes the best way to go, the movement of organic material is one exampleand in others the elements in the trash may have an intrinsic value thatmakes a recycling process the most economical or have other significantfactors involved. But over all it comes down to money and convenienceand in rare cases some other special factor. Going back a few postssomebody pointed out that mass, any mass would be important to the inhabitantof a habitat because of the cost of lifting it to orbit, this is totallywrong, if the cost was that high then this kind of large habitat wouldnot be there for it to be an issue.
A final point, if you were using a fusion torch (not sure what thatis but I get the idea) or a very concentrated beam of sunlight or any otherkind of energy source to rip your trash into a plasma then what you willhave is not a container of mixed gas and soot. This was raised sometimeago and I have read a little about since and it seems that you can usemagnetic fields to sort out the charged ions from the plasma and then storeyour output as separate elements. Why dont we do that now with ourgarbage? Simple, the cost of building the equipment, the cost ofthe energy and I dont think anybody has a fully working model yet butreally this is just engineering and in space the main cost, the energy,should be very cheap. Mind you, I really dont think that many thingswould need this kind of work and in general what they will have in a largehabitat is limited recycling and a lot of new material entering the systemwith about the same amount going out. I just hope that most of whatgoes out is in the form of cargo.
All of this Tom is not to say that I disagree with the idea of recycling,I just know how hard it is to get people to do the things that they shoulddo as opposed to what they want to do.
And thank you for an interesting discussion, some of the things I'veseen in this forum have made me scratch my head and think, always worthdoing.

Darren Brown

From: Darren Brown
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track

Greetings from downunder Tom,
(of course it's only downunder from the perspective of those in the North ;-))

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:

Darren, and all interested,
We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I said that 100%
recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve 100% at
all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclable garbage
such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicality of
making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen, and
chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly a easy as
melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding them into another
plastic product.

Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have been said by a
toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materials rather
than durable and recyclable materials.

Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do you think
would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?

Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc. This is a
given.

What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?

I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no be recycled
except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutes and
which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozone in the water
may do the trick.

In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do you very best
or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now and next
confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?

Cheers,

Tom

You may be right, perhaps we are talking about different things or at lest taking you too literally. Let me try to state my option.
We have to consider what we mean when talking about a habitat, first there is the small (relatively) orbiting workshop/factory that may have a number of long term, by that I mean as long as several years, residents acting as a workforce. I hesitate to call this a habitat, it's more like a station but given that such a structure would most probably only happen where the cost to orbit is lower than today but still too high to allow the building of a large habitat of the type envisioned by most members of this forum, the cost of getting mass to it would make a stringent recycling/conservation program very attractive. Such a station would be used to only for high value work, this could be military, scientific, industrial or perhaps just national ego. In this scenario the 'population' would be disciplined and motivated to follow whatever conservation rules are put in place by whoever is running the place. It is very likely that if it was economically sound then total recycling (or as close as possible) would be followed but if the cost of the equipment either in shipping or running was too high then I expect they would just throw the stuff overboard and resupply as needed, of course they may send the trash back to Earth instead of jettisoning it, not because of concern for what happens to it but to keep it from upsetting any outside projects.

Now if we scale up to the kind of structure that could hold a large population that intend to make it home with shopkeepers, teachers, babies, churches, gardeners, doctors and all the other occupations you need in a living city, then we also need a way to orbit that is very cheap and then we need a way build and work with the huge mass involved in such an object. With transport so cheap and mass sitting around just waiting for you tap, basic economics is going to play a huge part in how the habitat works. Money doesn't just make the world go round it also works with habitats, people need a special reason to do something in an expensive way rather than a cheap way, be it religion, ideology, security, ego or because they are forced to. Unless it is cheaper to recycle something than to throw it away and get new ones, people won't do it. Here on Earth we can say that you need to include the cost to the environment in any cost analysis but in space that becomes irrelevant, after all, what environment? With some of the processes going on in a habitat recycling becomes the best way to go, the movement of organic material is one example and in others the elements in the trash may have an intrinsic value that makes a recycling process the most economical or have other significant factors involved. But over all it comes down to money and convenience and in rare cases some other special factor. Going back a few posts somebody pointed out that mass, any mass would be important to the inhabitant of a habitat because of the cost of lifting it to orbit, this is totally wrong, if the cost was that high then this kind of large habitat would not be there for it to be an issue.

A final point, if you were using a fusion torch (not sure what that is but I get the idea) or a very concentrated beam of sunlight or any other kind of energy source to rip your trash into a plasma then what you will have is not a container of mixed gas and soot. This was raised sometime ago and I have read a little about since and it seems that you can use magnetic fields to sort out the charged ions from the plasma and then store your output as separate elements. Why don't we do that now with our garbage? Simple, the cost of building the equipment, the cost of the energy and I don't think anybody has a fully working model yet but really this is just engineering and in space the main cost, the energy, should be very cheap. Mind you, I really don't think that many things would need this kind of work and in general what they will have in a large habitat is limited recycling and a lot of new material entering the system with about the same amount going out. I just hope that most of what goes out is in the form of cargo.

All of this Tom is not to say that I disagree with the idea of recycling, I just know how hard it is to get people to do the things that they should do as opposed to what they want to do.

Tom - Good thoughts. A well designed economy will provide economic incentives to recycle. Perhaps people get back a recycling deposit when they turn the product/consumer good back in for recycling?

Which would you prefer if you were a space ship manufacturer: a) looking out at the space lanes at space ships that you will be able to scrap and recycle into your new products, or b) wondering if boycots or transport problem may interrupt your supplies of raw materials for making new space ships? Germany has already implemented the former for their automobiles. :-)

Cheers,

Tom

And thank you for an interesting discussion, some of the things I've seen in this forum have made me scratch my head and think, always worth doing.

Darren Brown

From:
Darren Brown
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:25 AM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track
Greetings from downunder Tom,
(of course it's only downunder from the perspective of those in the North ;-))

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:
Darren, and all interested,
We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I said that 100%
recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve 100% at
all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclable garbage
such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicality of
making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen, and
chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly a easy as
melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding them into another
plastic product.
Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have been said by a
toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materials rather
than durable and recyclable materials.
Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do you think
would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?
Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc. This is a
given.
What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?
I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no be recycled
except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutes and
which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozone in the water
may do the trick.
In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do you very best
or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now and next
confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?
Cheers,
Tom

You may be right, perhaps we are talking about different things or at lest taking you too literally. Let me try to state my option.
We have to consider what we mean when talking about a habitat, first there is the small (relatively) orbiting workshop/factory that may have a number of long term, by that I mean as long as several years, residents acting as a workforce. I hesitate to call this a habitat, it's more like a station but given that such a structure would most probably only happen where the cost to orbit is lower than today but still too high to allow the building of a large habitat of the type envisioned by most members of this forum, the cost of getting mass to it would make a stringent recycling/conservation program very attractive. Such a station would be used to only for high value work, this could be military, scientific, industrial or perhaps just national ego. In this scenario the 'population' would be disciplined and motivated to follow whatever conservation rules are put in place by whoever is running the place. It is very likely that if it was economically sound then total recycling (or as close as possible) would be followed but if the cost of the equipment either in shipping or running was too high then I expect they would just throw the stuff overboard and resupply as needed, of course they may send the trash back to Earth instead of jettisoning it, not because of concern for what happens to it but to keep it from upsetting any outside projects.
Now if we scale up to the kind of structure that could hold a large population that intend to make it home with shopkeepers, teachers, babies, churches, gardeners, doctors and all the other occupations you need in a living city, then we also need a way to orbit that is very cheap and then we need a way build and work with the huge mass involved in such an object. With transport so cheap and mass sitting around just waiting for you tap, basic economics is going to play a huge part in how the habitat works. Money doesn't just make the world go round it also works with habitats, people need a special reason to do something in an expensive way rather than a cheap way, be it religion, ideology, security, ego or because they are forced to. Unless it is cheaper to recycle something than to throw it away and get new ones, people won't do it. Here on Earth we can say that you need to include the cost to the environment in any cost analysis but in space that becomes irrelevant, after all, what environment? With some of the processes going on in a habitat recycling becomes the best way to go, the movement of organic material is one example and in others the elements in the trash may have an intrinsic value that makes a recycling process the most economical or have other significant factors involved. But over all it comes down to money and convenience and in rare cases some other special factor. Going back a few posts somebody pointed out that mass, any mass would be important to the inhabitant of a habitat because of the cost of lifting it to orbit, this is totally wrong, if the cost was that high then this kind of large habitat would not be there for it to be an issue.
A final point, if you were using a fusion torch (not sure what that is but I get the idea) or a very concentrated beam of sunlight or any other kind of energy source to rip your trash into a plasma then what you will have is not a container of mixed gas and soot. This was raised sometime ago and I have read a little about since and it seems that you can use magnetic fields to sort out the charged ions from the plasma and then store your output as separate elements. Why don't we do that now with our garbage? Simple, the cost of building the equipment, the cost of the energy and I don't think anybody has a fully working model yet but really this is just engineering and in space the main cost, the energy, should be very cheap. Mind you, I really don't think that many things would need this kind of work and in general what they will have in a large habitat is limited recycling and a lot of new material entering the system with about the same amount going out. I just hope that most of what goes out is in the form of cargo.
All of this Tom is not to say that I disagree with the idea of recycling, I just know how hard it is to get people to do the things that they should do as opposed to what they want to do.
Tom - Good thoughts. A well designed economy will provide economic incentives to recycle. Perhaps people get back a recycling deposit when they turn the product/consumer good back in for recycling?
Which would you prefer if you were a space ship manufacturer: a) looking out at the space lanes at space ships that you will be able to scrap and recycle into your new products, or b) wondering if boycots or transport problem may interrupt your supplies of raw materials for making new space ships? Germany has already implemented the former for their automobiles. :-)
Cheers,
Tom

And thank you for an interesting discussion, some of the things I've seen in this forum have made me scratch my head and think, always worth doing.

Darren Brown

> > Recycling of all garbage should be a goal.
>

Today on earth, the main cost of garbage recylcing is the energy
costs. In space you have a bigger incentive to recycle because
materials cost so much more, and a much cheaper energy source.

> Probably. However when you consider the thousands of tonnes needed
to
> make
> a habitat the costs of mass probably won't be so great- there's no
way
> to build a habitat if the cost is $10,000/lb. Does anyone have a
rough
> figure
> on the underlying costs of launching mass from the moon or an
asteroid
> to
> HEO? I suppose mass launchers get close to pennies a pound. It must
cost
> more than that on earth.

The last study I saw, was about $1 kg for electrical propulsion for
earth to orbit, assumming the system to use the electricity existed.
I'm pretty sure that is a theortical number based on how much energy
it would take. Multiply by 10 or a 100?

bill t wrote:

> The last study I saw, was about $1 kg for electrical propulsion for
> earth to orbit,

About right, assuming 8c per kilowatt hour. However
if you site your launch site near a hydro plant it may
work out even cheaper. It's actually cheaper to use
rockets from the earth (if the rocket is very reusable)
because fuel cost is much lower than electricity.
(Rockets also have less problems with atmospheric
heating.)

> assumming the system to use the electricity existed.
> I'm pretty sure that is a theortical number based on how much energy
> it would take. Multiply by 10 or a 100?

Divide by 16 first- its roughly 1/16 of the energy if you
launch from the moon. And very much lower than that from
some near earth asteroids. Of course that assumes that you are
launching a LOT, and therefore the equipment costs
are divided down to basically nothing.

All,

What if the electrical energy was applied from space rather than from earth? What if a tether/rope could be dropped down to a sufficient altitude to connect with a payload that was then pulled into orbit using a nuclear or solar powered satellite propelled by electrical tether (i.e. www.tethers.com)?

Details need to be worked out, but the idea is viable IMO.

Tom
From: Ian Woollard
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track

bill t wrote:

> The last study I saw, was about $1 kg for electrical propulsion for
> earth to orbit,

About right, assuming 8c per kilowatt hour. However
if you site your launch site near a hydro plant it may
work out even cheaper. It's actually cheaper to use
rockets from the earth (if the rocket is very reusable)
because fuel cost is much lower than electricity.
(Rockets also have less problems with atmospheric
heating.)

> assumming the system to use the electricity existed.
> I'm pretty sure that is a theortical number based on how much energy
> it would take. Multiply by 10 or a 100?

Divide by 16 first- its roughly 1/16 of the energy if you
launch from the moon. And very much lower than that from
some near earth asteroids. Of course that assumes that you are
launching a LOT, and therefore the equipment costs
are divided down to basically nothing.

What if the electrical energy was applied from space rather than from earth? What if a tether/rope could be dropped down to a sufficient altitude to connect with a payload that was then pulled into orbit using a nuclear or solar powered satellite propelled by electrical tether (i.e.
www.tethers.com
)?

Details need to be worked out, but the idea is viable IMO.

Tom
From:
Ian Woollard
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Tuesday, December 19, 2000 8:32 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Keeping your habitat on the track
bill t wrote:
> The last study I saw, was about $1 kg for electrical propulsion for
> earth to orbit,
About right, assuming 8c per kilowatt hour. However
if you site your launch site near a hydro plant it may
work out even cheaper. It's actually cheaper to use
rockets from the earth (if the rocket is very reusable)
because fuel cost is much lower than electricity.
(Rockets also have less problems with atmospheric
heating.)
> assumming the system to use the electricity existed.
> I'm pretty sure that is a theortical number based on how much energy
> it would take. Multiply by 10 or a 100?
Divide by 16 first- its roughly 1/16 of the energy if you
launch from the moon. And very much lower than that from
some near earth asteroids. Of course that assumes that you are
launching a LOT, and therefore the equipment costs
are divided down to basically nothing.