Interesting pessimist's take on trying to settle Mars. Note: I'm not an advocate ofhis basic message, but respect it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQ1bKd7Los

so because the first attempt to build a closed ecosystem did not work
out it will never work out?

wrote :> so because the first attempt to build a closed ecosystem did not work> out it will never work out? >> first tries at anything usually crash and burn .. >> yes - all these ARE problems ... but problems that can be solved ..There is this little thing about how, before trying to build a self-contained habitat in
space, we have not been able to build one here on earth where it wiould be far far
easier to do. Also the fact that there has been no second attempt (at least that the
public knows about). It gives us a little warning that building and running a space
habitat might be vastly more difficult than enthusiasts think. If nothing else food for
thought.
---In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, baur@... wrote :
so because the first attempt to build a closed ecosystem did not work
out it will never work out?

wlm_efn@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

actually - i have been expecting elon musk to restart the biosphere
project (or try something similar) some time ago ..

have you seen the orbs outside Amazon in Seattle? Pretty and pretty neat.Bezos has a High Frontier background.On March 1, 2018 at 12:38 PM "markus baur baur@... [spacesettlers]" wrote: actually - i have been expecting elon musk to restart the biosphere project (or try something similar) some time ago .. servus markus Am 01.03.2018 um 17:55 schrieb wlm_efn@... [spacesettlers]: > There is this little thing about how, before trying to build a > self-contained habitat in > space, we have not been able to build one here on earth where it wiould > be far far > easier to do. Also the fact that there has been no second attempt (at > least that the > public knows about). It gives us a little warning that building and > running a space > habitat might be vastly more difficult than enthusiasts think. If > nothing else food for > thought. -- markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662 a-1040 wien email: baur@chello.at austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html "der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..."Robert SmithSpace Studies Instituteweb: http://www.ssi.orgthe space studies institute is a 501(c)(3) non profit organizationfounded in 1977 to promote the education and engineeringfor the Human Breakout Into Space

not yet been to seattle 8)

Google Amazon OrbsOn March 1, 2018 at 3:25 PM "markus baur baur@... [spacesettlers]" wrote: not yet been to seattle 8) servus markus Am 01.03.2018 um 21:14 schrieb Robert Smith robert@... [spacesettlers]: > have you seen the orbs outside Amazon in Seattle? Pretty and pretty neat. > > Bezos has a High Frontier background. > > >> On March 1, 2018 at 12:38 PM "markus baur baur@... >> [spacesettlers]" wrote: >> >> actually - i have been expecting elon musk to restart the biosphere >> project (or try something similar) some time ago .. >> >> servus >> >> markus >> >> Am 01.03.2018 um 17:55 schrieb wlm_efn@... [spacesettlers]: >> > There is this little thing about how, before trying to build a >> > self-contained habitat in >> > space, we have not been able to build one here on earth where it wiould >> > be far far >> > easier to do. Also the fact that there has been no second attempt (at >> > least that the >> > public knows about). It gives us a little warning that building and >> > running a space >> > habitat might be vastly more difficult than enthusiasts think.. If >> > nothing else food for >> > thought. >> >> -- >> markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg >> schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662 >> a-1040 wien email: baur@... >> austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E >> >> a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html >> >> "der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..." >> > > > > Robert Smith > Space Studies Institute > web: http://www.ssi.org > the space studies institute is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization > founded in 1977 to promote the education and engineering > for the Human Breakout Into Space > -- markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662 a-1040 wien email: baur@chello.at austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html "der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..."Robert SmithSpace Studies Instituteweb: http://www.ssi.orgthe space studies institute is a 501(c)(3) non profit organizationfounded in 1977 to promote the education and engineeringfor the Human Breakout Into Space

nice ..

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:35 AM, markus baur baur@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> so because the first attempt to build a closed ecosystem did not work
> out it will never work out?
>

How might one contact the UK Space Settlers Society

Radiation protection and G are assumed to be included. Even if the first few generations of habitats are a single hab spun opposite a counter-mass on a truss.
Design to spin the radiation shielding for 1G, and the incidental weight/mass of the actual habitat and anything inside it are almost insignificant additional mass.
Musk must know all this, I assume he's following media hype, all of which says "Mars is the next/only target". Same with why I'm still in the Mars Society, though their managers stubbornly use bad science to try to down-pay the importance of the O'Neill colony findings, and also follow the hype about Mars being the next logical step.
Once we get something large-going on, it must go towards asteroid mining for metals to pay for the whole thing, and then to O'Neill habitats. Then we can live at Mars or anywhere else.
Articles like this which are totally ignorant of the Space Colony studies aren't a help.

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 7:31 AM, 'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> Well, I would take your point that theres no reason to get fanatical about the 0 inputs/0 outputs philosophy. That said, I think closed ecologies are still an important cornerstone of the ONeill habitat concept.

Deforestation is continuing at a rapid pace to feed humans and to expand
settlements, the market economy assumes that we are the only species on
this planet.

Perhaps, but a point I might be failing to get across is that, in the current era, we cannot point to anyone who is a refugee due to over-crowding from overpopulation, or due to climate change. Current refugees are such due to war in their homeland. And thus we cannot justify space settlement on this point. Are you thinking about some future era in which this is happening? If so, one is of course free to project any kind of changes they can imagine into the future, but it would be nice to find a reason for space settlement right now.

Transmission and conversion losses are on the order of 50 percent total. So,in real power delivered to the ground it's 2 to 2.5 times.> So the potential revenue per area is about 4 or 5 times that of a ground based> cell> Add to that that a space based solar cell will possibly have a lower life time> (ground based cell today often have a 25 year power warranty) due to the> harsher environment.> Additionally: the necessity of the rectenna

Am 02.05.2018 um 18:30 schrieb wlm_efn@... [spacesettlers]:
> Transmission and conversion losses are on the order of 50 percent total. So,
> in real power delivered to the ground it's 2 to 2.5 times.

do you mean my comparison of ground to space based solar cell yield? or
the data on transmission looses?

I meant 4 or 5 times the total electrical energy produced by solar cells at theSPS, compared to solar cells on the ground. Then one just multiplies thosefactors by 50% for the electrical energy delivered at the ground for SPS.Maybe this is not correct.> do you mean my comparison of ground to space based solar cell yield? or> the data on transmission looses?>> Transmission and conversion losses are on the order of 50 percent >> total. So, in real power delivered to the ground it's 2 to 2.5 times.

https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-maury-equation-redux/> Do you have a pointer to a source of data? Thanks!>>>> Am 02.05.2018 um 18:30 schrieb wlm_efn@... [spacesettlers]:>>> Transmission and conversion losses are on the order of 50 percent>>> total. So, in real power delivered to the ground it's 2 to 2.5 times..>>>> that bad? i thought they had improved it in the meantime

Down in Long Beach there is the Big Battery.
Yeah, a while back there was a discussion about improvements in PV efficiency or price. Somebody correctly pointed out that any such would benefit SPS as equally well as ground-based. I expressed the opinion that there was only one technical development that would shift advantage toward ground-based and away from SPS, and that would be some rapid, revolutionary advance in power storage. But even then, you raise a legitimate point that wed have to be careful that such didnt have its own attendant environmental problems.
I find your points interesting that no existing system even tries to cover the entire night-long gap.
Regards,
Mike Combs

similar argument to mine - only this is looking at lifetime production
and i was looking on average momentary production