Ok here's my list:

- space tourism (hotels)
- space sports
- 'mobile homes' (want to go to mars?)
- space swimming pools (think low velocity water slides that go
upside-down)
- separating compounds
- repairing telecom satellites
- building telecoms satellites
- space theme parks
- building solar power satellites
- somewhere to live (especially workers for the above)
- really secure accomodation for rich people

Anything else?

This is a pretty good list. In my way of thinking, a massive SPS
construction program, and its attendant space housing requirements, is
probably the only primary justification for the building of orbital
settlements. (Although I would have to allow that orbital tourism might
also lead to space habitats, albeit in a much more evolutionary and
drawn-out way.) In an major SPS construction program, there would be both
the space mining and orbital infrastructure needed to build habitats, and
(barring dramatic improvements in robotics) the requirement for doing so.
The other items on this list, while valid advantages of orbital life,
probably cannot stand as primary rationales for building space settlements.
But once space settlements are built for other reasons, all these items
become advantages to this approach.

I would see space settlers as arriving in 3 waves. The first would be
composed of SPS and other space construction workers; those who will want to
live in orbit because that's where their jobs are. Then, after subsequent
habitats begin being built for immigrants from Earth, the next generation
will probably be the wealthy, who will want to live in space not only for
the prestige but for the ideal living conditions possible in a totally
artificial environment. Then I would hope that as prices continue to drop,
we would see a third wave of the less wealthy; those who may be leaving
Earth because they don't feel they can live as freely there as in
communities which they will make for themselves in space. This 3rd wave
will be the biggest, and in the long run the most significant.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:27 PM
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?

Ok here's my list:

- space tourism (hotels)
- space sports
- 'mobile homes' (want to go to mars?)
- space swimming pools (think low velocity water slides that go
upside-down)
- separating compounds
- repairing telecom satellites
- building telecoms satellites
- space theme parks
- building solar power satellites
- somewhere to live (especially workers for the above)
- really secure accomodation for rich people

Anything else?

I would see space settlers as arriving in 3 waves. The first would be composed of SPS and other space construction workers; those who will want to live in orbit because that's where their jobs are. Then, after subsequent habitats begin being built for immigrants from Earth, the next generation will probably be the wealthy, who will want to live in space not only for the prestige but for the ideal living conditions possible in a totally artificial environment. Then I would hope that as prices continue to drop, we would see a third wave of the less wealthy; those who may be leaving Earth because they don't feel they can live as freely there as in communities which they will make for themselves in space. This 3rd wave will be the biggest, and in the long run the most significant.

Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:27 PM
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?
Ok here's my list:
- space tourism (hotels)
- space sports
- 'mobile homes' (want to go to mars?)
- space swimming pools (think low velocity water slides that go
upside-down)
- separating compounds
- repairing telecom satellites
- building telecoms satellites
- space theme parks
- building solar power satellites
- somewhere to live (especially workers for the above)
- really secure accomodation for rich people
Anything else?

Mike,

Without a dramatic drop in cost to orbit, and a dramatic rise in the cost of fossil fuels, SPS will remain uneconomical.
I think that we will need to see a breakthrough in the cost of achieving orbit that then leads to a huge demand for tourists to travel to LEO as well as to the vicinity of the moon. Once that is possible, they won't want to go home and so space hotels will be in demand, especially if 1G environment can be provided. Once people can sit around a restaurant or bar in space discussing ideas, mining of asteroids can't be far behind.
Maintenance of satellites and launching to Mars will also be incentives, but minor when compared with the dollars tourists will bring.

This is how I see it today.

Tom
From: Combs, Mike
To: 'spacesettlers@egroups.com'
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:19 AM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?

This is a pretty good list. In my way of thinking, a massive SPS construction program, and its attendant space housing requirements, is probably the only primary justification for the building of orbital settlements. (Although I would have to allow that orbital tourism might also lead to space habitats, albeit in a much more evolutionary and drawn-out way.) In an major SPS construction program, there would be both the space mining and orbital infrastructure needed to build habitats, and (barring dramatic improvements in robotics) the requirement for doing so. The other items on this list, while valid advantages of orbital life, probably cannot stand as primary rationales for building space settlements. But once space settlements are built for other reasons, all these items become advantages to this approach.

I would see space settlers as arriving in 3 waves. The first would be composed of SPS and other space construction workers; those who will want to live in orbit because that's where their jobs are. Then, after subsequent habitats begin being built for immigrants from Earth, the next generation will probably be the wealthy, who will want to live in space not only for the prestige but for the ideal living conditions possible in a totally artificial environment. Then I would hope that as prices continue to drop, we would see a third wave of the less wealthy; those who may be leaving Earth because they don't feel they can live as freely there as in communities which they will make for themselves in space. This 3rd wave will be the biggest, and in the long run the most significant.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:27 PM
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?

Ok here's my list:

- space tourism (hotels)
- space sports
- 'mobile homes' (want to go to mars?)
- space swimming pools (think low velocity water slides that go
upside-down)
- separating compounds
- repairing telecom satellites
- building telecoms satellites
- space theme parks
- building solar power satellites
- somewhere to live (especially workers for the above)
- really secure accomodation for rich people

Anything else?

Without a dramatic drop in cost to orbit, and a dramatic rise in the cost of fossil fuels, SPS will remain uneconomical.
I think that we will need to see a breakthrough in the cost of achieving orbit that then leads to a huge demand for tourists to travel to LEO as well as to the vicinity of the moon. Once that is possible, they won't want to go home and so space hotels will be in demand, especially if 1G environment can be provided. Once people can sit around a restaurant or bar in space discussing ideas, mining of asteroids can't be far behind.
Maintenance of satellites and launching to Mars will also be incentives, but minor when compared with the dollars tourists will bring.

This is how I see it today.

Tom
From:
Combs, Mike
To:
'spacesettlers@egroups.com'
Sent:
Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:19 AM
Subject:
RE: [spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?
This is a pretty good list. In my way of thinking, a massive SPS construction program, and its attendant space housing requirements, is probably the only primary justification for the building of orbital settlements. (Although I would have to allow that orbital tourism might also lead to space habitats, albeit in a much more evolutionary and drawn-out way.) In an major SPS construction program, there would be both the space mining and orbital infrastructure needed to build habitats, and (barring dramatic improvements in robotics) the requirement for doing so. The other items on this list, while valid advantages of orbital life, probably cannot stand as primary rationales for building space settlements. But once space settlements are built for other reasons, all these items become advantages to this approach.

I would see space settlers as arriving in 3 waves. The first would be composed of SPS and other space construction workers; those who will want to live in orbit because that's where their jobs are. Then, after subsequent habitats begin being built for immigrants from Earth, the next generation will probably be the wealthy, who will want to live in space not only for the prestige but for the ideal living conditions possible in a totally artificial environment. Then I would hope that as prices continue to drop, we would see a third wave of the less wealthy; those who may be leaving Earth because they don't feel they can live as freely there as in communities which they will make for themselves in space. This 3rd wave will be the biggest, and in the long run the most significant.

Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:27 PM
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?
Ok here's my list:
- space tourism (hotels)
- space sports
- 'mobile homes' (want to go to mars?)
- space swimming pools (think low velocity water slides that go
upside-down)
- separating compounds
- repairing telecom satellites
- building telecoms satellites
- space theme parks
- building solar power satellites
- somewhere to live (especially workers for the above)
- really secure accomodation for rich people
Anything else?

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

Without a dramatic drop in cost to orbit, and a dramatic rise in the cost of
fossil fuels, SPS will remain uneconomical.

Both could be in our future. Although I would say that use of space
resources is a way around the high costs of launching things up from Earth.
But, yeah, at least a 10-fold reduction in launch costs would be nice before
we even wanted to get started.

Some say that we don't need space resources, we just need lower launch
costs. To me, it would take something like a 1,000-fold reduction in launch
costs before space resource use became unattractive. I suspect we will live
in that era between 10-fold and 1,000-fold lift cost reductions for quite
some while

I think that we will need to see a breakthrough in the cost of achieving
orbit that then leads to a huge demand for tourists to travel to LEO as well
as to the vicinity of the moon. Once that is possible, they won't want to
go home and so space hotels will be in demand, especially if 1G environment
can be provided. Once people can sit around a restaurant or bar in space
discussing ideas, mining of asteroids can't be far behind.

Yes, I definitely should not dismiss the possibility of tourism being a
major driver of this process.

Rgds,
Mike Combs

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

Without a dramatic drop in cost to orbit, and a dramatic rise in the cost of fossil fuels, SPS will remain uneconomical.

Both could be in our future. Although I would say that use of space resources is a way around the high costs of launching things up from Earth. But, yeah, at least a 10-fold reduction in launch costs would be nice before we even wanted to get started.

Some say that we don't need space resources, we just need lower launch costs. To me, it would take something like a 1,000-fold reduction in launch costs before space resource use became unattractive. I suspect we will live in that era between 10-fold and 1,000-fold lift cost reductions for quite some while

I think that we will need to see a breakthrough in the cost of achieving orbit that then leads to a huge demand for tourists to travel to LEO as well as to the vicinity of the moon. Once that is possible, they won't want to go home and so space hotels will be in demand, especially if 1G environment can be provided. Once people can sit around a restaurant or bar in space discussing ideas, mining of asteroids can't be far behind.

Yes, I definitely should not dismiss the possibility of tourism being a major driver of this process.

Rgds,
Mike Combs

There are positive signs on the space resource front right now,
most of them relate to the moon.

There is a NASA project underway with a landing in about 5 years
to investigate lunar ice. The project documentation says that they
expect upto 58% reduction in costs for their space missions
and they have rough plans for exploiting the ice.

There's also a mission underway, funded by Radio Shack to land
a rover on the moon to look around. Proof of the existence and
form of the ice would be a great incentive to actually use the
lunar resources.

The chinese are supposedly working on something although they
aren't saying what. (Incidentally the Chinese could well be
very interested indeed in SPS-type projects, how else
are they going to power a billion people with the current
greenhouse targets?)

At the moment I have fair hopes for LEO-GEO work pushing
down costs and building launch rate. I think that within
10 years we will have seen a factor of >4x reduction in
launch costs. That may bring down the access costs to
the rich tourist range.

Combs, Mike wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Ian Woollard
> There are positive signs on the space resource front right now,
> most of them relate to the moon.
>
> There is a NASA project underway with a landing in about 5 years
> to investigate lunar ice. The project documentation says that they
> expect upto 58% reduction in costs for their space missions
> and they have rough plans for exploiting the ice.
>
> There's also a mission underway, funded by Radio Shack to land
> a rover on the moon to look around. Proof of the existence and
> form of the ice would be a great incentive to actually use the
> lunar resources.
>
> The chinese are supposedly working on something although they
> aren't saying what. (Incidentally the Chinese could well be
> very interested indeed in SPS-type projects, how else
> are they going to power a billion people with the current
> greenhouse targets?)
>
> At the moment I have fair hopes for LEO-GEO work pushing
> down costs and building launch rate. I think that within
> 10 years we will have seen a factor of >4x reduction in
> launch costs. That may bring down the access costs to
> the rich tourist range.
>
> Combs, Mike wrote:
>
If the Polar Night Discovery is funded, we would get a better look at
the possiblility of ice at the Moon's poles.
In the vain of looking up, I hope everyone got a chance to view the
installation of the solar panels on Space Station Alpha wiht NASA TV
on the Internet. One address
http://www.broadcast.com/learning_and_education/science/space/nasa/nas
a_television/

There are views now of the prepartion for the shuttles landing Monday.
Regards Larry
> > *From:* Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@c...]
> >
> > Without a dramatic drop in cost to orbit, and a dramatic rise
in the cost of fossil fuels, SPS will remain uneconomical.
> >
> > Both could be in our future. Although I would say that use of
space resources is a way around the high costs of launching things up
from Earth. But, yeah, at least a 10-fold reduction in launch costs
would be nice before we even wanted to get started.
> >
> > Some say that we don't need space resources, we just need lower
launch costs. To me, it would take something like a 1,000-fold
reduction in launch costs before space resource use became
unattractive. I suspect we will live in that era between 10-fold and
1,000-fold lift cost reductions for quite some while
> >
> > I think that we will need to see a breakthrough in the cost
of achieving orbit that then leads to a huge demand for tourists
to travel to LEO as well as to the vicinity of the moon. Once
that is possible, they won't want to go home and so space hotels will
be in demand, especially if 1G environment can be provided. Once
people can sit around a restaurant or bar in space discussing ideas,
mining of asteroids can't be far behind.
> >
> > Yes, I definitely should not dismiss the possibility of tourism
being a major driver of this process.

From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]

There is a NASA project underway with a landing in about 5 years
to investigate lunar ice. The project documentation says that they
expect upto 58% reduction in costs for their space missions
and they have rough plans for exploiting the ice.

That's very interesting, given that Jim Benson, who's very much in favor of
extracting water from NEOs, seems to feel that the difficulties of using
lunar ice are insuperable. I wonder about his pessimism here, when NASA
seems to be cautiously optimistic, at the very least.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
There is a NASA project underway with a landing in about 5 years
to investigate lunar ice. The project documentation says that they
expect upto 58% reduction in costs for their space missions
and they have rough plans for exploiting the ice.

That's very interesting, given that Jim Benson, who's very much in favor of extracting water from NEOs, seems to feel that the difficulties of using lunar ice are insuperable. I wonder about his pessimism here, when NASA seems to be cautiously optimistic, at the very least.

Regards,
Mike Combs

All,

I view space colonies as a natural part of commerce and so it would be
something like "Deep Space 9" where people are coming and going using the
space port facilities. Refueling, changing cargo as in a switch yard, etc.
would be vital.
There may be shuttles from the asteroid belt that are not designed for earth
entry/exit, and so they drop-off their cargo for processing and transport.
He3 to earth along with rare earths, and steel/alloys are manufactured into
more space colony/space ship components. Lots of jobs, I would think. Also,
launching space ships to Mars and the asteroid belt would be vital missions
too. Perhaps a magnetic motor could launch space craft so eliminate the
need for booster rockets? If this were done, then the space colony would be
magnet for space craft!

Regards,

Tom

From: "Ian Woollard"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 6:26 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] So what ARE habitats good for anyway?

Combs, Mike wrote:

>
> *From:* Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
>
> There is a NASA project underway with a landing in about 5 years
> to investigate lunar ice. The project documentation says that they
> expect upto 58% reduction in costs for their space missions
> and they have rough plans for exploiting the ice.
>
> That's very interesting, given that Jim Benson, who's very much in favor
> of extracting water from NEOs, seems to feel that the difficulties of
> using lunar ice are insuperable. I wonder about his pessimism here,
> when NASA seems to be cautiously optimistic, at the very least.

Here's the link:

http://niac.usra.edu/studies/study_template.jsp?id=341&cp_num-02&phase=I&last=Rice&first=Eric&middle=E&title=Development+of+Lunar+Ice+Recovery+System+Architecture&topic=In-Situ+Utilization&sub_topic=+&organization=Orbital+Technologies+Corporation+%28ORBITEC%29&active=false&begin_date=May+1%2C+1999&end_date=Oct+31%2C+1999>

Actually its NIAC: Nasa Institute for Advanced Concepts. Presumably they
are funded by NASA in some way.