--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> But I can't see space manufacturing having such
> an advantage that it becomes preferable to Earth manufacturing for
products
> whose end use is on Earth. I still think we should concentrate on
markets
> for products whose end use is in space.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.

:) ed

From: "Ed Minchau"
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

[snikt]
> Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
> large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
> pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
> profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
>

I've often heard that, but until now I have no evidence to think that this
vision is more than an optmistic assumption. As far as I know, there is no
know material produced only in zero-g that is unvaluable or unreplaceable in
the perspective of the Earth-based industry.

> :) ed
[snikt]

Omni

Sorry Lucio

There are a whole range of alloys that cannot be made anywhere other
than in a microgravity environment. Indeed, it isn't even possible to
make a perfect ball-bearing on planet Earth. It is possible up there.

Best wishes, Andy.

"Dr. Omni" wrote:

Yes, but is anybody willing to pay for space-produced ball bearings?
Lucio's original point, with which I agree, is that Earth-based industry
does not have a great need for ball bearings produced in microgravity vis
a vis available terrestrial alternatives. The available terrestrial
alternatives work well enough for most situations.

andy-nimmo
09/20/01 09:02 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

Sorry Lucio
There are a whole range of alloys that cannot be made anywhere other than
in a microgravity environment. Indeed, it isn't even possible to make a
perfect ball-bearing on planet Earth. It is possible up there.
Best wishes, Andy.
"Dr. Omni" wrote:
From: "Ed Minchau"
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

[snikt]
> Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
> large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
> pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
> profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
>
I've often heard that, but until now I have no evidence to think that this
vision is more than an optmistic assumption. As far as I know, there is no
know material produced only in zero-g that is unvaluable or unreplaceable
in
the perspective of the Earth-based industry.
> :) ed
[snikt]
Omni

andy-nimmo
09/20/01 09:02 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification
Sorry Lucio
There are a whole range of alloys that cannot be made anywhere other than in a microgravity environment. Indeed, it isn't even possible to make a perfect ball-bearing on planet Earth. It is possible up there.
Best wishes, Andy.
"Dr. Omni" wrote:
From: "Ed Minchau"
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

[snikt]
> Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
> large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
> pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
> profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
>
I've often heard that, but until now I have no evidence to think that this
vision is more than an optmistic assumption. As far as I know, there is no
know material produced only in zero-g that is unvaluable or unreplaceable in
the perspective of the Earth-based industry.
> :) ed
[snikt]
Omni

From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]

Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.

Then why aren't any corporations doing this for profit right now? They've
had many years to conduct experiments on Mir and on the Space Shuttle.
Alpha goes begging for users. If there were any tremendous market
opportunities here, corporations would not only be breaking down Alpha's
door, they'd probably be funding launch of their own private space stations.
This isn't happening, so we must reluctantly acknowledge that the whole
dream of opening the space frontier financed on the sale of exotic 0-G
alloys or pharmaceuticals was a fantasy promoted by people both inside and
outside of NASA who wanted space development very badly. But business only
cares about the bottom line, and will pursue any cheaper alternatives here
on Earth.

Now don't get me wrong. If Island One gets built for other purposes, then
there's no doubt in my mind that a profitable side business will exist for
small amounts of exotic materials. But this is with the assumption that
most of the space infrastructure will have already been paid for by other
efforts. Island One will never be built specifically to profit from sale of
foam steel, or drugs.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]

Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
Then why aren't any corporations doing this for profit right now? They've had many years to conduct experiments on Mir and on the Space Shuttle. Alpha goes begging for users. If there were any tremendous market opportunities here, corporations would not only be breaking down Alpha's door, they'd probably be funding launch of their own private space stations. This isn't happening, so we must reluctantly acknowledge that the whole dream of opening the space frontier financed on the sale of exotic 0-G alloys or pharmaceuticals was a fantasy promoted by people both inside and outside of NASA who wanted space development very badly. But business only cares about the bottom line, and will pursue any cheaper alternatives here on Earth.

Now don't get me wrong. If Island One gets built for other purposes, then there's no doubt in my mind that a profitable side business will exist for small amounts of exotic materials. But this is with the assumption that most of the space infrastructure will have already been paid for by other efforts. Island One will never be built specifically to profit from sale of foam steel, or drugs.
Regards,
Mike Combs

> From: andy-nimmo [mailto:andy-nimmo@...]
>
> There are a whole range of alloys that cannot be made anywhere other
> than in a microgravity environment.

Then where are all the companies who should logically be currently
exploiting this market opportunity? Alpha's up there and ready for
customers. There's been more commercial interest in tourism and making TV
shows on Alpha than on exotic alloys.

> Indeed, it isn't even possible to
> make a perfect ball-bearing on planet Earth. It is possible up there.

I heard Gerard O'Neill himself dismiss any perceived advantage to 0-G
manufacture of ball bearings. And I think he could hardly be accused of
being the kind of guy who would overlook an advantage of doing things in
space.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Hi Mike,

It seems to me that tests in short term Shuttle flights are just not
good enough. For a while there was a possibility of space-based
electrophoresis taking off, then ways of doing this cheaply on Earth
were discovered. This put companies in mind to experiment down here
first before spending large amounts on space research, but one of the
main purposes of the ISS is to do just the sort of research that is
required to reveal the products that will - or will not - be profitable
to make in space.

There are three things already that are likely to be profitable: (1)
Cheaper flights to and from LEO - which will also open other doors, (2)
Space Tourism - which will of itself justify the cheaper flights by
bringing mass production of vehicles, and (3) Space Jewellery - which
will soon be plentiful and have ultimate snob value.

Best wishes, Andy.

"Combs, Mike" wrote:

Hi again Mike,

"Combs, Mike" wrote:

> > From: andy-nimmo [mailto:andy-nimmo@...]
> >
> > There are a whole range of alloys that cannot be made anywhere other
>
> > than in a microgravity environment.
>
> Then where are all the companies who should logically be currently
> exploiting this market opportunity? Alpha's up there and ready for
> customers. There's been more commercial interest in tourism and
> making TV
> shows on Alpha than on exotic alloys.

Having been involved in pushing space here in the UK since 1956 I've had
considerable dealings with the business community and have found the
vast majority of them to be profoundly ignorant of space opportunities.
Indeed, as the guy who got space committees going in the Houses of
Parliament I have been utterly astonished at the atrocious advice given
those committees that do exist by UKISC and other such organizations (as
related to me by various MP friends of all parties). Accordingly, my
answer to your question is partly that most of the companies who could
gain are ignorant of this, the other part is the present totally
needless high cost of access to LEO.

> > Indeed, it isn't even possible to
> > make a perfect ball-bearing on planet Earth. It is possible up
> there.
>
> I heard Gerard O'Neill himself dismiss any perceived advantage to 0-G
> manufacture of ball bearings. And I think he could hardly be accused
> of
> being the kind of guy who would overlook an advantage of doing things
> in
> space.
>

I agree with you about O'Neill. He was a great guy, however his argument
was almost certainly based on 1970s space costings, and the fact that
present terrestrial ball-bearings are adequate. However, when the cost
of access to LEO comes down, as it will, and when the fact that a car
which presently lasts a few years because the bearings in it wear out in
time, can be made to last many times as long for a similar price because
of better ball-bearings which can only be produced in space, filters
down to Joe Car-Buyer, Joe and all his friends and neighbours are going
to demand that these ball-bearings are produced up there and shipped
down, and the auto-manufacturers are going to have to do it.

> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

Best wishes, Andy.

>

"Combs, Mike" wrote:
> From: andy-nimmo [
mailto:andy-nimmo@...
]
>
> There are a whole range of alloys that cannot be made anywhereother
> than in a microgravity environment.
Then where are all the companies who should logically be currently
exploiting this market opportunity? Alpha's up there andready for
customers. There's been more commercial interest in tourismand making TV
shows on Alpha than on exotic alloys.
Having been involved in pushing space here in the UK since 1956 I've hadconsiderable dealings with the business community and have found the vastmajority of them to be profoundly ignorant of space opportunities. Indeed,as the guy who got space committees going in the Houses of Parliament Ihave been utterly astonished at the atrocious advice given those committeesthat do exist by UKISC and other such organizations (as related to me byvarious MP friends of all parties). Accordingly, my answer to your questionis partly that most of the companies who could gain are ignorant of this,the other part is the present totally needless high cost of access to LEO.
> Indeed, it isn't even possible to
> make a perfect ball-bearing on planet Earth. It is possible upthere.
I heard Gerard O'Neill himself dismiss any perceived advantage to0-G
manufacture of ball bearings. And I think he could hardlybe accused of
being the kind of guy who would overlook an advantage of doingthings in
space.

I agree with you about O'Neill. He was a great guy, however his argumentwas almost certainly based on 1970s space costings, and the fact that presentterrestrial ball-bearings are adequate. However, when the cost of accessto LEO comes down, as it will, and when the fact that a car which presentlylasts a few years because the bearings in it wear out in time, can be madeto last many times as long for a similar price because of better ball-bearingswhich can only be produced in space, filters down to Joe Car-Buyer, Joeand all his friends and neighbours are going to demand that these ball-bearingsare produced up there and shipped down, and the auto-manufacturers aregoing to have to do it.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Best wishes, Andy.

.

From: andy-nimmo [mailto:andy-nimmo@...]

I agree with you about O'Neill. He was a great guy, however his argument was
almost certainly based on 1970s space costings, and the fact that present
terrestrial ball-bearings are adequate.

I think he based his argument on the fact that actual experiments with 0-G
manufactured ball bearings indicated that they weren't really all that
perfect.

I think it only hurts our cause to continue pushing space industrialization
notions which have been long discredited. It gives the appearance of us
"failing to keep up".

Now, having said that, I must confess that I myself have been accused of
failing to keep up by continuing to cling to those old Gerard O'Neill space
settlement concepts over the newer Robert Zubrin ideas. But here I think
two arguments can be made: 1. The fundamental concept of settling Mars is
not a newer idea, but actually a revival of a much older one. 2. The common
perception that O'Neill's ideas were not implemented because there was some
fundamental flaw is an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
andy-nimmo [mailto:andy-nimmo@...]
I agree with you about O'Neill. He was a great guy, however his argument was almost certainly based on 1970s space costings, and the fact that present terrestrial ball-bearings are adequate.

I think he based his argument on the fact that actual experiments with 0-G manufactured ball bearings indicated that they weren't really all that perfect.

I think it only hurts our cause to continue pushing space industrialization notions which have been long discredited. It gives the appearance of us "failing to keep up".

Now, having said that, I must confess that I myself have been accused of failing to keep up by continuing to cling to those old Gerard O'Neill space settlement concepts over the newer Robert Zubrin ideas. But here I think two arguments can be made: 1. The fundamental concept of settling Mars is not a newer idea, but actually a revival of a much older one. 2. The common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not implemented because there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact.

Regards,
Mike Combs

The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic. Even if they had been met, O'Neil's was
being very optimistic.

These problems are why I like the space tourism approach -- money now if
you solve the launch problem. If you don't solve the launch problem,
space colonization won't happen.

Mike wrote:

2. The common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not
implemented because there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption
rather than a demonstrated fact.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I hold no allegiance to any particular technological ideas of O'Neill, per
se. The concepts that I think are core are the following:

1.) Don't dive down into some deep gravity well (e.g., Mars) just after
having expended so much energy to get off the Earth.
2.) Realize that there are plentiful resources in the Inner Solar System
beyond the Earth that are not in deep gravity wells (e.g., Luna, NEOs).
Exploit these dead, airless bodies to drive the expansion of humanity into
space.

When I read the High Frontier and see O'Neill talking about colonies of
ten thousand people or more, my eyes glaze over. I'd be happy if there
were 100 non-NASA people living off-Earth, much less 10,000. Yes, I
completely agree that we need to focus on space tourism. And on SPSs and
orbital transfer vehicles and GEO antenna farms and on other means to
generate a positive economic impact. Colonization will occur AFTER we've
learned to make goodly amounts of money off-planet. We can't have an
"Island One" filled with 10,000 people living in space until there is an
economic reason for 10,000 people to live in space. And if it takes
10,000 people to construct SPSs, then we're sunk because the startup costs
will be much, much too large to justify the endeavor.

What I would fault O'Neill for is that his vision, expressed in The High
Frontier, is too far away into the future. Zubrin and The Mars Society,
by contrast, want to get a few handfuls of people onto Mars soon, a much
more limited vision. True, Zubrin and Mars Society advocates are into
the whole long-term terraforming thing, but they have a specific and
limited near-term proposal: Mars Direct.

Mars Direct is Zubrin's near-term, limited, government-funded proposal. We
need to counter with something similar.

What do you think about this counter-proposal to Mars Direct: return
NEO 1991 VG --- all of it --- to ISS Alpha. The 1991 VG is probably less
than 10 meters in diameter (absolute magnitude 28.5). We can do this
thing with less technology than required by Mars Direct.

Ron Menich

Al Globus
09/21/01 06:03 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic. Even if they had been met, O'Neil's was
being very optimistic.

These problems are why I like the space tourism approach -- money now if
you solve the launch problem. If you don't solve the launch problem,
space colonization won't happen.

Mike wrote:

2. The common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not
implemented because there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption
rather than a demonstrated fact.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

1.) Don't dive down into some deep gravity well (e.g., Mars) just after having expended so much energy to get off the Earth.
2.) Realize that there are plentiful resources in the Inner Solar System beyond the Earth that are not in deep gravity wells (e.g., Luna, NEOs). Exploit these dead, airless bodies to drive the expansion of humanity into space.
When I read the High Frontier and see O'Neill talking about colonies of ten thousand people or more, my eyes glaze over. I'd be happy if there were 100 non-NASA people living off-Earth, much less 10,000. Yes, I completely agree that we need to focus on space tourism. And on SPSs and orbital transfer vehicles and GEO antenna farms and on other means to generate a positive economic impact. Colonization will occur AFTER we've learned to make goodly amounts of money off-planet. We can't have an "Island One" filled with 10,000 people living in space until there is an economic reason for 10,000 people to live in space. And if it takes 10,000 people to construct SPSs, then we're sunk because the startup costs will be much, much too large to justify the endeavor.
What I would fault O'Neill for is that his vision, expressed in The High Frontier, is too far away into the future. Zubrin and The Mars Society, by contrast, want to get a few handfuls of people onto Mars soon, a much more limited vision. True, Zubrin and Mars Society advocates are into the whole long-term terraforming thing, but they have a specific and limited near-term proposal: Mars Direct.
Mars Direct is Zubrin's near-term, limited, government-funded proposal. We need to counter with something similar.
What do you think about this counter-proposal to Mars Direct: return NEO 1991 VG --- all of it --- to ISS Alpha. The 1991 VG is probably less than 10 meters in diameter (absolute magnitude 28.5). We can do this thing with less technology than required by Mars Direct.
Ron Menich
Al Globus
09/21/01 06:03 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification
The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic. Even if they had been met, O'Neil's was
being very optimistic.
These problems are why I like the space tourism approach -- money now if
you solve the launch problem. If you don't solve the launch problem,
space colonization won't happen.
Mike wrote:
2. The common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not
implemented because there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption
rather than a demonstrated fact.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Hi Mike,

I guess results of experiments carried out will depenbd on the
micro-gravity involved. What is or is not discredited is a matter of
opinion.

Generally speaking I very much agree with your support for Gerard
O'Neill, but even though the Mars Society UK is one of the groups I am a
member of, I would not give unqualified support to Zubrin. He has come
up with lots of good ideas re Mars, but some of the things he says are
based on assumptions that may or may not turn out to be so, and like
yourself, as I think you are aware, I personally very much prefer the
idea of settling in space itself rather than on any planetary surface.

Best wishes, Andy.

"Combs, Mike" wrote:

> From: andy-nimmo [mailto:andy-nimmo@...]
>
> I agree with you about O'Neill. He was a great guy, however
> his argument was almost certainly based on 1970s space
> costings, and the fact that present terrestrial
> ball-bearings are adequate.
>
> I think he based his argument on the fact that actual experiments with
> 0-G manufactured ball bearings indicated that they weren't really all
> that perfect.I think it only hurts our cause to continue pushing space
> industrialization notions which have been long discredited. It gives
> the appearance of us "failing to keep up".Now, having said that, I
> must confess that I myself have been accused of failing to keep up by
> continuing to cling to those old Gerard O'Neill space settlement
> concepts over the newer Robert Zubrin ideas. But here I think two
> arguments can be made: 1. The fundamental concept of settling Mars is
> not a newer idea, but actually a revival of a much older one. 2. The
> common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not implemented because
> there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption rather than a
> demonstrated fact.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>

Start here...

Height:
345678ft 01234567891011in

Weight:
lbs.kg.

Hi Ron,

This is probably still some way off, but one of the ideas the old L5
Society came up with back in the 70s, was that when the cost of getting
up to geosynchronous orbit and above comes down to reasonable levels,
using lunar materials - they didn't know there were quite as many NEOs
as we know about - you could build family house sized shops powered by
light sails manufactured up there, and family groups could take off
prospecting the asteroids in our Solar System.

There are lots of obvious snags in this, such as the amount of food
storage space you'd require for longish voyages, and the mass of
sheilding you'd require, the size of sails you'd need to carry it etc.
Nevertheless, if some way of opening our system to individual small
groups of prospectors could be found, and just one of those groups found
a bonanza asteroid somewhere, in no time Solar System space would begin
to be settled.

Best wishes, Andy.

rmenich@... wrote:

>
> I hold no allegiance to any particular technological ideas of O'Neill,
> per se. The concepts that I think are core are the following:
>
> 1.) Don't dive down into some deep gravity well (e.g., Mars) just
> after having expended so much energy to get off the Earth.
> 2.) Realize that there are plentiful resources in the Inner Solar
> System beyond the Earth that are not in deep gravity wells (e.g.,
> Luna, NEOs). Exploit these dead, airless bodies to drive the
> expansion of humanity into space.
>
> When I read the High Frontier and see O'Neill talking about colonies
> of ten thousand people or more, my eyes glaze over. I'd be happy if
> there were 100 non-NASA people living off-Earth, much less 10,000.
> Yes, I completely agree that we need to focus on space tourism. And
> on SPSs and orbital transfer vehicles and GEO antenna farms and on
> other means to generate a positive economic impact. Colonization
> will occur AFTER we've learned to make goodly amounts of money
> off-planet. We can't have an "Island One" filled with 10,000 people
> living in space until there is an economic reason for 10,000 people to
> live in space. And if it takes 10,000 people to construct SPSs, then
> we're sunk because the startup costs will be much, much too large to
> justify the endeavor.
>
> What I would fault O'Neill for is that his vision, expressed in The
> High Frontier, is too far away into the future. Zubrin and The Mars
> Society, by contrast, want to get a few handfuls of people onto Mars
> soon, a much more limited vision. True, Zubrin and Mars Society
> advocates are into the whole long-term terraforming thing, but they
> have a specific and limited near-term proposal: Mars Direct.
>
> Mars Direct is Zubrin's near-term, limited, government-funded
> proposal. We need to counter with something similar.
>
> What do you think about this counter-proposal to Mars Direct:
> return NEO 1991 VG --- all of it --- to ISS Alpha. The 1991 VG is
> probably less than 10 meters in diameter (absolute magnitude 28.5).
> We can do this thing with less technology than required by Mars
> Direct.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Al Globus
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
09/21/01 06:03 PM cc:
Please respond to spacesettlers Subject: Re:
[spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>
> Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
> large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as
certain
> pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
> profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
>
> Then why aren't any corporations doing this for profit right now?
They've
> had many years to conduct experiments on Mir and on the Space
Shuttle.
> Alpha goes begging for users. If there were any tremendous market
> opportunities here, corporations would not only be breaking down
Alpha's
> door, they'd probably be funding launch of their own private space
stations.
> This isn't happening, so we must reluctantly acknowledge that the
whole
> dream of opening the space frontier financed on the sale of exotic
0-G
> alloys or pharmaceuticals was a fantasy promoted by people both
inside and
> outside of NASA who wanted space development very badly. But
business only
> cares about the bottom line, and will pursue any cheaper
alternatives here
> on Earth.
>
> Now don't get me wrong. If Island One gets built for other
purposes, then
> there's no doubt in my mind that a profitable side business will
exist for
> small amounts of exotic materials. But this is with the assumption
that
> most of the space infrastructure will have already been paid for by
other
> efforts. Island One will never be built specifically to profit from
sale of
> foam steel, or drugs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

In this case, NASA is the problem.

Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.

And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
overcomprised before the first one was built.

Read G Harry Stine's HALFWAY TO ANYWHERE.

Rick Brooks

Even with Current launch costs it would still be possible to mount a small
scale asteriod mining mission. Although such a mission would be mostly for
publicitiy and would earn more money from naming rights and sponsership then
the materials bought back.

Although for anything larger then a little bit of mining we are going to need
cheaper transport and also the ability to grow our own food in the longer term
as earth wont be able to support us when those living in space exceeds those
living on earth and its also cheaper to grow the food in space then haul it up.

Don't expect NASA to start this unless there is a major change in policy.

--- rabrooks@... wrote:

Perhaps we need one that brings back a baby asteroid to the ISS.
That would be something. Does anyone know of a candidate asteroid?

Ryan Healey wrote:

> Even with Current launch costs it would still be possible to mount a small
> scale asteriod mining mission. Although such a mission would be mostly for
> publicitiy and would earn more money from naming rights and sponsership then
> the materials bought back.
>
> Although for anything larger then a little bit of mining we are going to need
> cheaper transport and also the ability to grow our own food in the longer term
> as earth wont be able to support us when those living in space exceeds those
> living on earth and its also cheaper to grow the food in space then haul it up.
>
> Don't expect NASA to start this unless there is a major change in policy.
>
> --- rabrooks@... wrote:
>
>>In this case, NASA is the problem.
>>
>>Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
>>thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.
>>
>>And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
>>overcomprised before the first one was built.
>>
>>Read G Harry Stine's HALFWAY TO ANYWHERE.
>>
>>Rick Brooks
>>
>

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

rabrooks@... wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
>
>>From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>>
>>Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
>>large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as
>>
> certain
>
>>pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
>>profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
>>
>>Then why aren't any corporations doing this for profit right now?
>>
> They've
>
>>had many years to conduct experiments on Mir and on the Space
>>
> Shuttle.
>
>>Alpha goes begging for users. If there were any tremendous market
>>opportunities here, corporations would not only be breaking down
>>
> Alpha's
>
>>door, they'd probably be funding launch of their own private space
>>
> stations.
>
>>This isn't happening, so we must reluctantly acknowledge that the
>>
> whole
>
>>dream of opening the space frontier financed on the sale of exotic
>>
> 0-G
>
>>alloys or pharmaceuticals was a fantasy promoted by people both
>>
> inside and
>
>>outside of NASA who wanted space development very badly. But
>>
> business only
>
>>cares about the bottom line, and will pursue any cheaper
>>
> alternatives here
>
>>on Earth.
>>
>>Now don't get me wrong. If Island One gets built for other
>>
> purposes, then
>
>>there's no doubt in my mind that a profitable side business will
>>
> exist for
>
>>small amounts of exotic materials. But this is with the assumption
>>
> that
>
>>most of the space infrastructure will have already been paid for by
>>
> other
>
>>efforts. Island One will never be built specifically to profit from
>>
> sale of
>
>>foam steel, or drugs.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mike Combs
>>
>
> In this case, NASA is the problem.
>
> Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
> thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.

Two stage would do it as well, provided its very reusable. Two
stagers have bigger payload size relative to lift off weight. Check
out the Kistler aerospace design.

The issue with SSTO is that the payload size turns out to be quite
small; relative to the lift off weight, but most of that weight is
fuel, and fuel is very cheap (don't let any greenies hear us talk
about that ;-) - although in fact metal takes quite a bit of energy
to make and machine, so the ecological issues aren't clear.)

> And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
> overcomprised before the first one was built.

It's the most capable vehicle in the world. It's also by a long,
long way the most expensive. It's a Ferrari, but we need VW
Beetles; and everyone looks at it, and thinks- look how expensive
space is!

> Read G Harry Stine's HALFWAY TO ANYWHERE.
>
> Rick Brooks
>

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> rabrooks@l... wrote:
>
> > In this case, NASA is the problem.
> >
> > Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
> > thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.
>
> Two stage would do it as well, provided its very reusable. Two
> stagers have bigger payload size relative to lift off weight. Check
> out the Kistler aerospace design.
>
It's been many years since I read Arthur C. Clarke's PRELUDE TO SPACE,
a story of the first moon landing. Clarke had a two stage. The
bottom stage was piloted and would lift the top stage to the edge of
space. Then the lower stage would disengage and glide home.

Can't get much more reusable than that.

> The issue with SSTO is that the payload size turns out to be quite
> small; relative to the lift off weight, but most of that weight is
> fuel, and fuel is very cheap (don't let any greenies hear us talk
> about that ;-) - although in fact metal takes quite a bit of energy
> to make and machine, so the ecological issues aren't clear.)
>
> > And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
> > overcomprised before the first one was built.
>
> It's the most capable vehicle in the world. It's also by a long,
> long way the most expensive. It's a Ferrari, but we need VW
> Beetles; and everyone looks at it, and thinks- look how expensive
> space is!
>
That's why I say NASA is the problem.
>
> > Read G Harry Stine's HALFWAY TO ANYWHERE.
> >
Rick Brooks

From: Al Globus [mailto:aglobus@...]

The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic.

You're absolutely right of course. So we might say that O'Neill's proposals
only become practical if and when we have a space transportation system
which makes good on the promises made for the Shuttle.

I was more referring to the assumption on the part of many Mars enthusiasts
that since we haven't built Island One in the year 2001, it's obviously the
case that Mars is a better target for settlement than orbital space. But of
course Mars settlement is just as dependent on improvements in space
transportation systems as is space settlement.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Al Globus [mailto:aglobus@...]
The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic.

You're absolutely right of course. So we might say that O'Neill's proposals only become practical if and when we have a space transportation system which makes good on the promises made for the Shuttle.

I was more referring to the assumption on the part of many Mars enthusiasts that since we haven't built Island One in the year 2001, it's obviously the case that Mars is a better target for settlement than orbital space. But of course Mars settlement is just as dependent on improvements in space transportation systems as is space settlement.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Ian Woolard wrote,

"Perhaps we need one that brings back a baby asteroid to the ISS. That
would be something. Does anyone know of a candidate asteroid?"

As of a month ago when I last updated my spreadsheet from the IAU Minor
Planet Center, there were 7 NEOs of absolute magnitude H>(:
1991 VG
2000 LG6
1991 TU
1994 ES1
1994 XM1
1991 BA
1993 KA2.

Read http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Sizes.html to see how to convert
from absolute magnitude to diameter, and the uncertainties in that
conversion. All these NEOs should be less than 12 meters in diameter.
Some could potentially be less than 1 meter in diameter.

Based on my very rudimentary knowledge of orbital mechanics, the order in
which I've listed these NEOs should roughly correspond to the ease of
reaching them, with 1991 VG being the easiest. Perhaps Al Globus could
opine on why he mentioned 1991 BA in his AsterAnts article (c.f.,
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html ), but he did
not mention 1991 VG, although presumably both were known at the time of
writing.

Ron Menich
"
Perhaps we need one that brings back a baby asteroid to the ISS. That would be something. Does anyone know of a candidate asteroid?
"
As of a month ago when I last updated my spreadsheet from the IAU Minor Planet Center, there were 7 NEOs of absolute magnitude H>(:
1991 VG
2000 LG6
1991 TU
1994 ES1
1994 XM1
1991 BA
1993 KA2.
Read http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Sizes.html to see how to convert from absolute magnitude to diameter, and the uncertainties in that conversion. All these NEOs should be less than 12 meters in diameter. Some could potentially be less than 1 meter in diameter.
Based on my very rudimentary knowledge of orbital mechanics, the order in which I've listed these NEOs should roughly correspond to the ease of reaching them, with 1991 VG being the easiest. Perhaps Al Globus could opine on why he mentioned 1991 BA in his AsterAnts article (c.f., http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html ), but he did not mention 1991 VG, although presumably both were known at the time of writing.
Ron Menich

With all due respect, no one knows how to mine an asteroid. No one
knows how the equipment should work -- much less how to actually build
it (people do have untested opinions, of course). Furthermore,
terrestrial mining requires intimate knowledge of the mining site,
something automated asteroidal mining will probably require in spades.
I think we need quite a bit more data, and some serious tech
development, before we can launch a mining mission.

Ryan Healey wrote:
>
> Even with Current launch costs it would still be possible to mount a small
> scale asteriod mining mission. Although such a mission would be mostly for
> publicitiy and would earn more money from naming rights and sponsership then
> the materials bought back.
>
> Although for anything larger then a little bit of mining we are going to need
> cheaper transport and also the ability to grow our own food in the longer term
> as earth wont be able to support us when those living in space exceeds those
> living on earth and its also cheaper to grow the food in space then haul it up.
>
> Don't expect NASA to start this unless there is a major change in policy.
>
> --- rabrooks@... wrote:
> > In this case, NASA is the problem.
> >
> > Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
> > thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.
> >
> > And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
> > overcomprised before the first one was built.
> >
> > Read G Harry Stine's HALFWAY TO ANYWHERE.
> >
> > Rick Brooks
>

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

rabrooks@... wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> > rabrooks@l... wrote:
> >
> > > In this case, NASA is the problem.
> > >

This sort of sentiment is common among those who have never built a
launch vehicle. Always interesting how the people who are actually doing
something (like launching and recovering reusable spacecraft) are
considered the problem ...

That said, NASA has abandonded a lot of launch vehicle efforts
(aerospace plane, X33, X34, X37) after the usual cost over-runs; but
keeps on with space station after a factor of 10 in cost over-run (the
original price was $8 billion). Of course, space station was initiated
by a Presidential (Reagan) call to action followed by Congressional
money. The various launch vehicle initiatives have come from inside
NASA, not our political leaders.

If Congress and the President made it clear to NASA that they were to
build better launch vehicles, NASA would. NASA might anyway, but it's
much less likely.

> > > Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
> > > thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.
> >

NASA tried to build a SSTO with aerospace plane but failed. We probably
need a more energetic fuel than hydrogen/oxygen to get a positive
payload mass. A NASA collegue of mine is studying tetrahedral
nitrogen. It's never been made, but theory says it's stable and it
should have about ~50% higher isp than hydrogen/oxygen. NASA has some
ideas about how to make tetrahedral nitrogen and will be testing them
over the next few months and years

> >
> > > And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
> > > overcomprised before the first one was built.
> >
> > It's the most capable vehicle in the world. It's also by a long,
> > long way the most expensive.

Actaully, the shuttle is not the most expensive per kg to orbit, the
small launchers are. Also, the shuttle is the CHEAPEST vehicle measured
in cubic meters to orbit.

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Al Globus wrote:

> If Congress and the President made it clear to NASA that they were to
> build better launch vehicles, NASA would. NASA might anyway, but it's
> much less likely.

It's not clear that NASA should. But that's just my opinion.
NASA is not politically positioned to deliver cost-effective
access to space, and IMO is unlikely to ever be able to do this,
or even be able to do this.

>>>>Until we get a good single stage to orbit ship that doesn't need
>>>>thousands of people to support it, we can't do any of this stuff.
>>>>
>
> NASA tried to build a SSTO with aerospace plane but failed. We probably
> need a more energetic fuel than hydrogen/oxygen to get a positive
> payload mass.

NASA sticks wings on everything as usual, and everything comes out
too heavy. What's the point? You can't fly in space, and most
reentry vehicles don't need the crossrange capability. Rocket
engines have a lower mass fraction for landing anyway. Sure, engine
out at landing could spoil your whole day, but multiple engines can
handle that if necessary; and liquid fueled engines are VERY
reliable. I'm missing something, or NASA is (probably me I guess,
but I wish I knew what).

Presumably you've heard about LOX/Kero coming out about the same
as LH/LOX to orbit after you've taken account of the extra engine
weight due to the low density of liquid hydrogen? And LOX/Kero has
better energy density. LOX/Kero engines have upto 125:1 thrust to
weight ratio, SSME scrapes in at 70:1. The rocket ends up loads
heavier, but physically smaller, and the extra mass is nearly all
fuel; ridiculously cheap fuel at that.

Actually that's why the Proton is as good as it is- they've used a
denser fuel than LOX/Kero, with a higher ISP, and the engine masses
comes out waaaay smaller than SSME.

> A NASA collegue of mine is studying tetrahedral
> nitrogen. It's never been made, but theory says it's stable and it
> should have about ~50% higher isp than hydrogen/oxygen. NASA has some
> ideas about how to make tetrahedral nitrogen and will be testing them
> over the next few months and years

Sounds great if it pans out. What's the density going to be like?
ISP is NOT everything.

>>>>And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
>>>>overcomprised before the first one was built.
>>>>
>>>It's the most capable vehicle in the world. It's also by a long,
>>>long way the most expensive.
>>>
>
> Actaully, the shuttle is not the most expensive per kg to orbit, the
> small launchers are.

Yeah, ok; you've got me there.

> Also, the shuttle is the CHEAPEST vehicle measured
> in cubic meters to orbit.

I wasn't aware space needed any more ;-)

(Sorry Al, I actually have a lot of respect for anything that makes

orbit; NASA does lots of cool stuff.)

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

The first mission could probably turn a profit as a publicity stunt that
doesn't bring back many materials. It may not be mining in the strict sense
but it will get people's attention.

--- Al Globus wrote:

Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > If Congress and the President made it clear to NASA that they were to
> > build better launch vehicles, NASA would. NASA might anyway, but it's
> > much less likely.
>
> It's not clear that NASA should. But that's just my opinion.
> NASA is not politically positioned to deliver cost-effective
> access to space, and IMO is unlikely to ever be able to do this,
> or even be able to do this.
>

NASA will become politically positioned to do anything Congress and the
President really want it to do (within certain physical constraints).
"Really want it to do" means clear direction and money.

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>> Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured in
large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as certain
pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
>
> Then why aren't any corporations doing this for profit right now?

Very simple. Corporations not only care only about the bottom line,
they generally only care about the bottom line for the next year (ten
years in the future is looking far ahead). Anything that will take
longer than that to be profitable, has to be a very sure bet. Just
look how short a time venture capitalists were willing to put up with
unprofitable Internet companies.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> rabrooks@l... wrote:
>
> > --- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> > And NASA is pretty fixed on the space shuttle, a machine that was
> > overcomprised before the first one was built.
>
> It's the most capable vehicle in the world. It's also by a long,
> long way the most expensive. It's a Ferrari, but we need VW
> Beetles; and everyone looks at it, and thinks- look how expensive
> space is!

And like a Ferrari, it spends most of its time in the shop. ;-)

I think a better analogy for the space shuttle is a pickup truck. It
can carry passengers, but not too many. It can carry cargo, but not
too much. You can sleep in the back, but not very comfortably.

I think what we really need are analogues of busses, tractor-trailors,
and mobile homes -- especially if they can all share the same engine
and chassis.

Right. They especially like three-year plans and like to see a good
return.

That's another reason asteroid mining is the best bet I can think of.

Also, saloon owners are primarily interested in running their
saloons, not space development.

Nevertheless, you want to attract mainstream investors, not just
space loonies (like me- lol).

George
http://cygo.com/

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "John Wheeler" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> > From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
> >> Well, there will be some products which can only be manufactured
in
> large quantities in zero gee or low-gee environments, such as
certain
> pharmaceuticals or alloys. Such products would definitely be
> profitable to produce and "downport" to earth.
> >
> > Then why aren't any corporations doing this for profit right now?
>
> Very simple. Corporations not only care only about the bottom line,
> they generally only care about the bottom line for the next year
(ten
> years in the future is looking far ahead). Anything that will take
> longer than that to be profitable, has to be a very sure bet. Just
> look how short a time venture capitalists were willing to put up
with