Greetings all,

I leave town for a few days and look what happens, all this activity,
so much to answer, so few keystrokes ;-)

Looking over posts of the two weeks I have seen a lot of really good
threads and some very diverse opinions. So in the interest of
stirring the pot I propose to throw a few meaty ideas out to see if I
can get a bite, so don't disappoint me, please! Now like everybody
else, I will preface my comments with the unfortunate fact that all
that follows is predicated on a drastic drop in the cost of launching
a kilogram into orbit. Without cheap access to orbit it will be a
long time before any of these things happen, also my comments are very
general and I know that they will change with circumstance.

Okay, to start, a while ago I discussed with Mike what I thought was
the problem that some, not all of the people pushing the idea of
orbital habitats have with looking at reality, they seem to believe
that life in a habitat is going to be some kind of paradise on Earth
or rather above Earth. That all the troubles and problems that plague
us down here will magically disappear as soon as they move into their
new habitat. They might get the advantages of a large city while
having a back yard that looks out over a rustic idle but there is no
way it will be Shangri-La. This is not to say that many of the people
thinking about and more importantly working towards a real habitat are
not competent and realistic, just that the other kind make for better
news stories by some ignorant, malicious or lazy reporters. My point,
just that somebody emphasising the utopian and glossing over the
difficulties is an easy target for the people or groups that don't
want habitats or in some cases any kind of presence in space.

A lot of the posts have been asking just why we want to have habitats,
this is a pretty fundamental question and is one of those questions
that really has no real answer, no matter how many reasons we can come
up with I will guarantee that there is as many others that we won't
think of, as well as uses that will only become obvious after we have
a working habitat in place and people confronting the day to day
issues and taking advantage of the opportunities that arise. On the
other side of the coin for every reason you can come up with to go to
space, somebody will have one not to do it. But I'm preaching to the
choir, aren't I?

If you'll just indulge me for a moment and let me put forward a few
hypothetical options, I'd like to know what you think, although let's
face it this message has already be written and sent so you don't
really have a choice 8>).

First the question(s).

What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we want/need
a space based civilisation?

This is to a large extent a question of cost with a large dash of
politics and ideology. Over the years I've given this subject a LOT
of thought and without going into a huge amount detail I think that
what you basically have is a sliding scale with two main variables,
the cost of the actual launch, that is the cost of fuel and the amount
of fuel needed to get each kilo of mass into orbit. And then you have
the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to build the launch vehicle,
the launch site, any ground crew and other turnaround costs. I know
that they seem to be part of the same thing but launch costs benefit
just the fuel supplier and rocket builder, while infrastructure costs
can be offset with the money flowing into the surrounding population
and the possibility of political support to keep local voters happy.
With the current space shuttle the costs are so high that the idea of
a large habitat with a population of around that of a large town is
simply ludicrous, this is the high end of the scale and at this end
the answer to the question is simple, "What habitat?". As we slide
down the scale asking what is the use of a habitat will give you a
much broader range of answers. If we manage to get the costs down to
where Mike is aiming for in the near future of a ten fold reduction of
current costs, say down to around $1000/Kg then you are looking at
limited possibilities, tourism and power satellites being the most
obvious. Then as the cost drops you will find more things becoming
economical but let's consider a real science fiction option, if the
costs dropped down to just a few dollars a kilo or even less than a
dollar a kilo then the question becomes what is it you wouldn't do in
orbit.

Down at the bottom of the cost scale you could move entire industries
into orbit, not just the things in the list that Larry posted but
anything that is dangerous or dirty or maybe even illigal (I'm not
promoting, just pondering). And here is where you run into trouble.
Just suppose for a moment that you could do it, you had just
invented/discovered a way to put whatever you want into orbit at a
cost of less than a dollar a kilo. What do think is going to happen?
At first there will be a lot of noise and excitement, people like us
(well me at lest) will start to pack our bags and you will get offers
of funding from everywhere. You put together a consortium, draw your
plans for a modest habitat/work platform (to fund further work), find
a launch site, gather your workforce and begin to build your city in
the sky. Then people will start to think about and understand just
what could, I must stress COULD, not would happen. The worlds
military would start to think about having somebody standing above
them with the ability to hit them almost without effort, the airlines
would understand that if you can get to orbit in ten minutes you can
go from Sydney to New York in thirty, the mining industry would
understand that you could undercut them on price and that the green
groups would be screaming why hasn't it happened already, one half of
the anti-technology loonies will be sharpening their knives and
waiting for a chance, the other half will be stirring up the all of
the others I mentioned and telling them about how evil you are,
because if they don't stop you now then they will never have the
1800's again and the current space industry will be thinking about how
you killed their golden goose. Did I miss anybody? Probably but you
get the idea, now without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut I
think anybody wanting to build a habitat is going to have problems
that have nothing to do with launch costs or building a better rocket.
The launch costs are going to be smaller than the legal costs.

Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from scratch.
There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out there,
why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building your
habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid mining
operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a largeish
lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You may
have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should be
possible.

And for my last thought before heading off to steal a little sleep,
one very good way to pay for your habitat besides tourism, mining and
power generation, how about this, if you can get launch costs down to
where a habitat is possible then you go into the freight and transport
business. It should be cost effective to ship people and most
non-bulk goods by way of sub-orbital shuttle and maybe even bulk
goods, if the cost is low enough. Talk about fast delivery, you could
post a letter or parcel here in Australia and have it arrive in Europe
or the US the day before it was posted.

Please forgive any spelling or grammatical errors, it's late (here)
and I was up early.

Darren Brown.

You have asked three questions which I will paraphrase if you don't
mind.

About Shangri-La...
I don't if anyone has ever lived in Buffalo, but the place gets a
tonne of snow every year. On the other hand New Orleans doesn't have
this problem. In fact New Orleans as a city shuts down when they see a
couple of centimeters. Why am I talking about snow in New Orleans? It
illustrates the point. In Buffalo where they expect snow they have
built the infrastructure to deal with it.

In space habitats, the people will build the infra-structure to deal
with the problems unique to space condition. Nobody on earth thought
mold would be a problem on the MIR.

Will space-stations be a shangri-La. That depends on how good the
infra-structure is for sovling the problems.

About Geo-Politics...
This is probably the main reason why there has been little real
innovation in the last 30 years. Before everyone screams I'm wrong,
ask yourself how many things we are enjoying today could have been
built a decade ago, or two decades ago. Todays gigahertz risc
processors were in prototypes 10 years ago. I know I was helping
manufacture them at U of T. The research I did in superconductors
(which was cutting edge at the time) has yet to show up in any
products.

Today the rate of research is so high, that the markets can't recoup
the initial costs fast enough, so products don't ever get on the
market because of the risk.

Now add to that the self-interest of big business and government.
First big business. Had the car manufacturer decided to start building
natural gas powered vehicles in 1980, the U.S. would be self
sufficient in fuel today. If you think I'm wrong, remember the U.S.
has the largest supply of coal in the world, and the production of
methane from coal has been possible since the 1920's. But that would
have put the large oil companies out of business.

Government: What could the U.S. do if a colony decided to revolt the
way they did in 1776. How do you fight a war with a group of people
that could focus a mirror onto New York city and melt it? How do you
fight a group of people when your intercontinental missles can't reach
them, while there simplest weapons could annihilate your population.

If the U.S can't fight a war against a group of settlers, what other
country could?

About Asteroids...
This is exactly how I would build the first asteroid settlement. Go
out there with as little as possible and build everything you need.

For settlements in Orbit, unless we get real lucky and capture a small
asteroid naturally this is not going to happen.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "bill t" wrote:

Bill;
Greetings from Canberra,

>You have asked three questions which I will paraphrase if you don't
>mind.

I don't mind at all, feel free to express your thoughts in any way
you please. It is useful to see if we are really talking about the
same thing and avoids confusion.

>About Shangri-La...
>I don't if anyone has ever lived in Buffalo, but the place gets a
>tonne of snow every year. On the other hand New Orleans doesn't have
>this problem. In fact New Orleans as a city shuts down when they see
>a
>couple of centimeters. Why am I talking about snow in New Orleans? It
>illustrates the point. In Buffalo where they expect snow they have
>built the infrastructure to deal with it.

Snow is not something most people in Australia see much of, I happen
to live in Canberra, one of the few cities were we have snow fall
albeit very rare, in fact only a very light dusting in a few parts of
the city each year and many years with none. But I understand what
you are talking about, just about every part of Australia is subject
to bush fire and we are quite accustomed to regular burnings.

>In space habitats, the people will build the infra-structure to deal
>with the problems unique to space condition. Nobody on earth thought
>mold would be a problem on the MIR.

This is true but many of the problems they had with Mir and without
doubt will have with the IIS relate to life in a small space and
micro-g. A large habitat will have it's own problems but should only
have the type of trouble Mir had in the area around the axis. In
fact I suspect as soon as the first large habitat is built all kinds
of problems will make life uncomfortable and they will quickly be
dealt with but I really wonder what kind of strange weather they
might be making for themselves in truly large habitat.

>Will space-stations be a shangri-La. That depends on how good the
>infra-structure is for sovling the problems.

I don't disagree with this however I wasn't really talking about the
physical environment but the social one. With no disrespect to Mike
Combs, you should have a look at the images on his website or any of
the art showing life in a habitat ( I really like the artwork Mike,
just using your site because it has such a good collection ;-).
Happy families at play by babbling brooks or strolling though park
like forests. Is this possible? Without a doubt. Is it likely? Not
so certain but still possible. Is it going to utopia? Not a
chance. There is still going to people who get into fights and
others who think the things in your house would look better in
theirs, the mortgage payments will still have to made and kids will
still give parents grey hairs. In other words life is still going to
need to handled just like here. To all the normal stresses you live
with now you can add the worry that somebody with a desire to make
headlines is going to make a home brew bomb big enough to crack your
big windows, chance is going to really deal you a foul hand and
mutate some harmless bug into something that will tear though your
enclosed population like the black death or nobody saw that big rock
that is almost on top of you and now you can't move the habitat out
of the way. Am I going overboard a bit? Well, yes but the idea is a
lot of people sit and wonder about how to make a habitat work, what
kind of thing to build it out of, how to dump the extra heat, how do
you keep the water clean and so on. They tend to forget to work out
how the people are going to work, what kind of social setting will
the habitat have, how will it's internal economy work, is it just an
outpost of the nation that built it or is it an independent nation
itself and if so, what do the people who built it think of this or
how about the rest of the world?

>About Geo-Politics...
>This is probably the main reason why there has been little real
>innovation in the last 30 years. Before everyone screams I'm wrong,
>ask yourself how many things we are enjoying today could have been
>built a decade ago, or two decades ago. Todays gigahertz risc
>processors were in prototypes 10 years ago. I know I was helping
>manufacture them at U of T. The research I did in superconductors
>(which was cutting edge at the time) has yet to show up in any
>products.
>
>Today the rate of research is so high, that the markets can't recoup
>the initial costs fast enough, so products don't ever get on the
>market because of the risk.
>
>Now add to that the self-interest of big business and government.
>First big business. Had the car manufacturer decided to start
>building
>natural gas powered vehicles in 1980, the U.S. would be self
>sufficient in fuel today. If you think I'm wrong, remember the U.S.
>has the largest supply of coal in the world, and the production of
>methane from coal has been possible since the 1920's. But that would
>have put the large oil companies out of business.
>
>Government: What could the U.S. do if a colony decided to revolt the
>way they did in 1776. How do you fight a war with a group of people
>that could focus a mirror onto New York city and melt it? How do you
>fight a group of people when your intercontinental missles can't
reach
>them, while there simplest weapons could annihilate your population.
>
>If the U.S can't fight a war against a group of settlers, what other
>country could?

No need to use a mirror, in fact no point, if you could build a
habitat then your missiles could reach it but it takes time. No if I
was going to war with a nation on Earth then I would drop rocks on
them, big rocks and lots of them, followed by lots of little rocks,
because they are harder to hit.

>About Asteroids...
>This is exactly how I would build the first asteroid settlement. Go
>out there with as little as possible and build everything you need.
>
>For settlements in Orbit, unless we get real lucky and capture a
>small
>asteroid naturally this is not going to happen.
>
>Bill

Rebuilding an asteroid into a habitat is an idea I like but I don't
know if it is the cheapest and let's face it, cheapest is what will
happen. If you hollow out and spin a good sized rock, with the right
kind of bracing to stop it from flying apart you can make it strong
enough to make most people feel nice and safe (I know that is only an
illusion but most people live with this kind of illusion all the
time) and quell some of the worries I was talking about before.

With all of above I still feel that the greatest hurdle to building a
habitat will the people down here who are against such things for
reasons of ideology. Never underestimate the power of human
stupidity.

Darren Brown

Darren,

Quite an essay. Comments below:

Tom
From: Darren Brown
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 5:02 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] What if.......?

Greetings all,

I leave town for a few days and look what happens, all this activity,
so much to answer, so few keystrokes ;-)

Looking over posts of the two weeks I have seen a lot of really good
threads and some very diverse opinions. So in the interest of
stirring the pot I propose to throw a few meaty ideas out to see if I
can get a bite, so don't disappoint me, please! Now like everybody
else, I will preface my comments with the unfortunate fact that all
that follows is predicated on a drastic drop in the cost of launching
a kilogram into orbit. Without cheap access to orbit it will be a
long time before any of these things happen, also my comments are very
general and I know that they will change with circumstance.

Okay, to start, a while ago I discussed with Mike what I thought was
the problem that some, not all of the people pushing the idea of
orbital habitats have with looking at reality, they seem to believe
that life in a habitat is going to be some kind of paradise on Earth
or rather above Earth. That all the troubles and problems that plague
us down here will magically disappear as soon as they move into their
new habitat. They might get the advantages of a large city while
having a back yard that looks out over a rustic idle but there is no
way it will be Shangri-La. This is not to say that many of the people
thinking about and more importantly working towards a real habitat are
not competent and realistic, just that the other kind make for better
news stories by some ignorant, malicious or lazy reporters. My point,
just that somebody emphasising the utopian and glossing over the
difficulties is an easy target for the people or groups that don't
want habitats or in some cases any kind of presence in space.

A lot of the posts have been asking just why we want to have habitats,
this is a pretty fundamental question and is one of those questions
that really has no real answer, no matter how many reasons we can come
up with I will guarantee that there is as many others that we won't
think of, as well as uses that will only become obvious after we have
a working habitat in place and people confronting the day to day
issues and taking advantage of the opportunities that arise. On the
other side of the coin for every reason you can come up with to go to
space, somebody will have one not to do it. But I'm preaching to the
choir, aren't I?

If you'll just indulge me for a moment and let me put forward a few
hypothetical options, I'd like to know what you think, although let's
face it this message has already be written and sent so you don't
really have a choice 8>).

First the question(s).

What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we want/need
a space based civilisation?

Tom - A habitat should be build when it is needed. This will happen when economics allow for affordable LEO launches. I predict two primary missions:
1) Tourism
2) Launch platform for Mar and asteroid belt.

A Hilton in HEEO that is accessible from LEO would easily fetch 10K USD per night. The orbit should pass near the moon and take about two weeks to complete. People could transfer when near the earth, or stay on-board for another loop.

While orbiting, this platform/space dock could be busy launching and retreiving space ships to and from Mars/Asteroid belt. Lets assume that we discover a technology that allows for ships to be launched and retreived without the need of rockets but it will require the services of a space dock at each destination, OK? The space dock will become the center of commerce just as early settlements did when the interior of the US was first settled. Demands for space and processing will grow as traffic does. Minerals will be processed on-board so that gold and platnium can be shipped to earth for cash and the balance used for rocket fuel, construction of more space ships, etc. Demands for housing will grow. The space dock may lease space for the private construction of additional habitat modules who desire to be near the "trading post".
As multi-millionaires are made, they will seek to construction their early retirement facilities, and then we will see the first large O'Neil like facilities constructed.

This is to a large extent a question of cost with a large dash of
politics and ideology. Over the years I've given this subject a LOT
of thought and without going into a huge amount detail I think that
what you basically have is a sliding scale with two main variables,
the cost of the actual launch, that is the cost of fuel and the amount
of fuel needed to get each kilo of mass into orbit. And then you have
the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to build the launch vehicle,
the launch site, any ground crew and other turnaround costs. I know
that they seem to be part of the same thing but launch costs benefit
just the fuel supplier and rocket builder, while infrastructure costs
can be offset with the money flowing into the surrounding population
and the possibility of political support to keep local voters happy.
With the current space shuttle the costs are so high that the idea of
a large habitat with a population of around that of a large town is
simply ludicrous, this is the high end of the scale and at this end
the answer to the question is simple, "What habitat?". As we slide
down the scale asking what is the use of a habitat will give you a
much broader range of answers. If we manage to get the costs down to
where Mike is aiming for in the near future of a ten fold reduction of
current costs, say down to around $1000/Kg then you are looking at
limited possibilities, tourism and power satellites being the most
obvious. Then as the cost drops you will find more things becoming
economical but let's consider a real science fiction option, if the
costs dropped down to just a few dollars a kilo or even less than a
dollar a kilo then the question becomes what is it you wouldn't do in
orbit.

Down at the bottom of the cost scale you could move entire industries
into orbit, not just the things in the list that Larry posted but
anything that is dangerous or dirty or maybe even illigal (I'm not
promoting, just pondering). And here is where you run into trouble.
Just suppose for a moment that you could do it, you had just
invented/discovered a way to put whatever you want into orbit at a
cost of less than a dollar a kilo. What do think is going to happen?
At first there will be a lot of noise and excitement, people like us
(well me at lest) will start to pack our bags and you will get offers
of funding from everywhere. You put together a consortium, draw your
plans for a modest habitat/work platform (to fund further work), find
a launch site, gather your workforce and begin to build your city in
the sky. Then people will start to think about and understand just
what could, I must stress COULD, not would happen. The worlds
military would start to think about having somebody standing above
them with the ability to hit them almost without effort, the airlines
would understand that if you can get to orbit in ten minutes you can
go from Sydney to New York in thirty, the mining industry would
understand that you could undercut them on price and that the green
groups would be screaming why hasn't it happened already, one half of
the anti-technology loonies will be sharpening their knives and
waiting for a chance, the other half will be stirring up the all of
the others I mentioned and telling them about how evil you are,
because if they don't stop you now then they will never have the
1800's again and the current space industry will be thinking about how
you killed their golden goose. Did I miss anybody? Probably but you
get the idea, now without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut I
think anybody wanting to build a habitat is going to have problems
that have nothing to do with launch costs or building a better rocket.
The launch costs are going to be smaller than the legal costs.

Tom - To forstall fears of weapons, we should try to agree now that space colonies are to be free from weapons of mass destruction and probably hand guns/rifles too.

Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from scratch.
There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out there,
why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building your
habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid mining
operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a largeish
lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You may
have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should be
possible.

And for my last thought before heading off to steal a little sleep,
one very good way to pay for your habitat besides tourism, mining and
power generation, how about this, if you can get launch costs down to
where a habitat is possible then you go into the freight and transport
business. It should be cost effective to ship people and most
non-bulk goods by way of sub-orbital shuttle and maybe even bulk
goods, if the cost is low enough. Talk about fast delivery, you could
post a letter or parcel here in Australia and have it arrive in Europe
or the US the day before it was posted.

Please forgive any spelling or grammatical errors, it's late (here)
and I was up early.

Darren Brown.

Quite an essay. Comments below:

Tom
From:
Darren Brown
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Wednesday, December 20, 2000 5:02 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] What if.......?
Greetings all,
I leave town for a few days and look what happens, all this activity,
so much to answer, so few keystrokes ;-)
Looking over posts of the two weeks I have seen a lot of really good
threads and some very diverse opinions. So in the interest of
stirring the pot I propose to throw a few meaty ideas out to see if I
can get a bite, so don't disappoint me, please! Now like everybody
else, I will preface my comments with the unfortunate fact that all
that follows is predicated on a drastic drop in the cost of launching
a kilogram into orbit. Without cheap access to orbit it will be a
long time before any of these things happen, also my comments are very
general and I know that they will change with circumstance.
Okay, to start, a while ago I discussed with Mike what I thought was
the problem that some, not all of the people pushing the idea of
orbital habitats have with looking at reality, they seem to believe
that life in a habitat is going to be some kind of paradise on Earth
or rather above Earth. That all the troubles and problems that plague
us down here will magically disappear as soon as they move into their
new habitat. They might get the advantages of a large city while
having a back yard that looks out over a rustic idle but there is no
way it will be Shangri-La. This is not to say that many of the people
thinking about and more importantly working towards a real habitat are
not competent and realistic, just that the other kind make for better
news stories by some ignorant, malicious or lazy reporters. My point,
just that somebody emphasising the utopian and glossing over the
difficulties is an easy target for the people or groups that don't
want habitats or in some cases any kind of presence in space.
A lot of the posts have been asking just why we want to have habitats,
this is a pretty fundamental question and is one of those questions
that really has no real answer, no matter how many reasons we can come
up with I will guarantee that there is as many others that we won't
think of, as well as uses that will only become obvious after we have
a working habitat in place and people confronting the day to day
issues and taking advantage of the opportunities that arise. On the
other side of the coin for every reason you can come up with to go to
space, somebody will have one not to do it. But I'm preaching to the
choir, aren't I?
If you'll just indulge me for a moment and let me put forward a few
hypothetical options, I'd like to know what you think, although let's
face it this message has already be written and sent so you don't
really have a choice 8>).
First the question(s).
What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we want/need
a space based civilisation?

Tom - A habitat should be build when it is needed. This will happen when economics allow for affordable LEO launches. I predict two primary missions:
1) Tourism
2) Launch platform for Mar and asteroid belt.

A Hilton in HEEO that is accessible from LEO would easily fetch 10K USD per night. The orbit should pass near the moon and take about two weeks to complete. People could transfer when near the earth, or stay on-board for another loop.

While orbiting, this platform/space dock could be busy launching and retreiving space ships to and from Mars/Asteroid belt. Lets assume that we discover a technology that allows for ships to be launched and retreived without the need of rockets but it will require the services of a space dock at each destination, OK? The space dock will become the center of commerce just as early settlements did when the interior of the US was first settled. Demands for space and processing will grow as traffic does. Minerals will be processed on-board so that gold and platnium can be shipped to earth for cash and the balance used for rocket fuel, construction of more space ships, etc. Demands for housing will grow. The space dock may lease space for the private construction of additional habitat modules who desire to be near the "trading post".
As multi-millionaires are made, they will seek to construction their early retirement facilities, and then we will see the first large O'Neil like facilities constructed.

This is to a large extent a question of cost with a large dash of
politics and ideology. Over the years I've given this subject a LOT
of thought and without going into a huge amount detail I think that
what you basically have is a sliding scale with two main variables,
the cost of the actual launch, that is the cost of fuel and the amount
of fuel needed to get each kilo of mass into orbit. And then you have
the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to build the launch vehicle,
the launch site, any ground crew and other turnaround costs. I know
that they seem to be part of the same thing but launch costs benefit
just the fuel supplier and rocket builder, while infrastructure costs
can be offset with the money flowing into the surrounding population
and the possibility of political support to keep local voters happy.
With the current space shuttle the costs are so high that the idea of
a large habitat with a population of around that of a large town is
simply ludicrous, this is the high end of the scale and at this end
the answer to the question is simple, "What habitat?". As we slide
down the scale asking what is the use of a habitat will give you a
much broader range of answers. If we manage to get the costs down to
where Mike is aiming for in the near future of a ten fold reduction of
current costs, say down to around $1000/Kg then you are looking at
limited possibilities, tourism and power satellites being the most
obvious. Then as the cost drops you will find more things becoming
economical but let's consider a real science fiction option, if the
costs dropped down to just a few dollars a kilo or even less than a
dollar a kilo then the question becomes what is it you wouldn't do in
orbit.
Down at the bottom of the cost scale you could move entire industries
into orbit, not just the things in the list that Larry posted but
anything that is dangerous or dirty or maybe even illigal (I'm not
promoting, just pondering). And here is where you run into trouble.
Just suppose for a moment that you could do it, you had just
invented/discovered a way to put whatever you want into orbit at a
cost of less than a dollar a kilo. What do think is going to happen?
At first there will be a lot of noise and excitement, people like us
(well me at lest) will start to pack our bags and you will get offers
of funding from everywhere. You put together a consortium, draw your
plans for a modest habitat/work platform (to fund further work), find
a launch site, gather your workforce and begin to build your city in
the sky. Then people will start to think about and understand just
what could, I must stress COULD, not would happen. The worlds
military would start to think about having somebody standing above
them with the ability to hit them almost without effort, the airlines
would understand that if you can get to orbit in ten minutes you can
go from Sydney to New York in thirty, the mining industry would
understand that you could undercut them on price and that the green
groups would be screaming why hasn't it happened already, one half of
the anti-technology loonies will be sharpening their knives and
waiting for a chance, the other half will be stirring up the all of
the others I mentioned and telling them about how evil you are,
because if they don't stop you now then they will never have the
1800's again and the current space industry will be thinking about how
you killed their golden goose. Did I miss anybody? Probably but you
get the idea, now without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut I
think anybody wanting to build a habitat is going to have problems
that have nothing to do with launch costs or building a better rocket.
The launch costs are going to be smaller than the legal costs.
Tom - To forstall fears of weapons, we should try to agree now that space colonies are to be free from weapons of mass destruction and probably hand guns/rifles too.
Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from scratch.
There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out there,
why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building your
habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid mining
operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a largeish
lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You may
have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should be
possible.
And for my last thought before heading off to steal a little sleep,
one very good way to pay for your habitat besides tourism, mining and
power generation, how about this, if you can get launch costs down to
where a habitat is possible then you go into the freight and transport
business. It should be cost effective to ship people and most
non-bulk goods by way of sub-orbital shuttle and maybe even bulk
goods, if the cost is low enough. Talk about fast delivery, you could
post a letter or parcel here in Australia and have it arrive in Europe
or the US the day before it was posted.
Please forgive any spelling or grammatical errors, it's late (here)
and I was up early.
Darren Brown.

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
>
> Okay, to start, a while ago I discussed with Mike what I thought
was
> the problem that some, not all of the people pushing the idea of
> orbital habitats have with looking at reality, they seem to believe
> that life in a habitat is going to be some kind of paradise on
Earth
> or rather above Earth. That all the troubles and problems that
plague
> us down here will magically disappear as soon as they move into
their
> new habitat. They might get the advantages of a large city while
> having a back yard that looks out over a rustic idle but there is
no
> way it will be Shangri-La.

Well, I like what Marshal Savage had to say on this topic. He asked
us to imagine a cave man transported to the Middle ages. Meat
hanging in butcher shops! Huts warmed by fire places! To the
caveman's point of view, this is a paradise, but of course it leaves
a lot to be desired from our point of view. And even an inhabitant
of the Middle Ages would scoff at the idea he was living in a
paradise, what with the Black Death and the Spanish Inquisition and
all.

Then take that inhabitant of the Middle Ages and transport him to our
era. Meat wrapped in plastic in refrigerated displays! Central
heating AND air conditioning! Surely paradise! But again, we're
complaining about the crabgrass, and teen pregnancy, etc.

While agreeing that there are no utopias, Savage still insisted that
there can be quantum leaps upward in the standard of living, and that
was all space living would represent. Space settlers will have tons
of personal problems, but the whole thing is worth doing for no other
reason than the improvement in the standard of living.

On the topic of folks perhaps overselling space habitats, I heard one
writer say that the new frontier has always been oversold. The
turkeys didn't REALLY blacken the sky, and those hills weren't REALLY
made of gold. But the Westward Movement nonetheless was a worthwhile
event.

> What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we
want/need
> a space based civilisation?

I'd say the best proposal yet for what we will do for a living in
space is build SPS. As for do we need a space based civilization,
I'd say the answer is yes, provided we wish to remain an advancing
industrial civilization. Of course those you were talking about who
would be opposed to space settlement tend to be opposed to this also.

> Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
> habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from
scratch.
> There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out there,
> why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building
your
> habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid mining
> operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a largeish
> lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You
may
> have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should be
> possible.

Given that the atmosphere is going to press outward in all directions
with a force of around 7 lbs/square inch, I'd feel more comfortable
living inside of a manufactured steel hull than some raw nickle iron
astroid material with some reinforcement.

Mike, etal.,

IMO, being able to take a metallic asteroid and to convert it into steel wire, cable, plate and angle shapes is an essential step in achieving a viable space economy. We will need to build space ships as well as habitat modules and I see steel as the primary base material.

The first space build structures will be like shacks to us, but soon they will resemble more like luxury cruise ships with vast interiors, pools, etc. It is amazing what you can do with steel and some paint.

Using existing structures/pressure vessels also makes lots of sense.

Cheers,

Tom
From: Mike Combs
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 7:28 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: What if.......?

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
>
> Okay, to start, a while ago I discussed with Mike what I thought
was
> the problem that some, not all of the people pushing the idea of
> orbital habitats have with looking at reality, they seem to believe
> that life in a habitat is going to be some kind of paradise on
Earth
> or rather above Earth. That all the troubles and problems that
plague
> us down here will magically disappear as soon as they move into
their
> new habitat. They might get the advantages of a large city while
> having a back yard that looks out over a rustic idle but there is
no
> way it will be Shangri-La.

Well, I like what Marshal Savage had to say on this topic. He asked
us to imagine a cave man transported to the Middle ages. Meat
hanging in butcher shops! Huts warmed by fire places! To the
caveman's point of view, this is a paradise, but of course it leaves
a lot to be desired from our point of view. And even an inhabitant
of the Middle Ages would scoff at the idea he was living in a
paradise, what with the Black Death and the Spanish Inquisition and
all.

Then take that inhabitant of the Middle Ages and transport him to our
era. Meat wrapped in plastic in refrigerated displays! Central
heating AND air conditioning! Surely paradise! But again, we're
complaining about the crabgrass, and teen pregnancy, etc.

While agreeing that there are no utopias, Savage still insisted that
there can be quantum leaps upward in the standard of living, and that
was all space living would represent. Space settlers will have tons
of personal problems, but the whole thing is worth doing for no other
reason than the improvement in the standard of living.

On the topic of folks perhaps overselling space habitats, I heard one
writer say that the new frontier has always been oversold. The
turkeys didn't REALLY blacken the sky, and those hills weren't REALLY
made of gold. But the Westward Movement nonetheless was a worthwhile
event.

> What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we
want/need
> a space based civilisation?

I'd say the best proposal yet for what we will do for a living in
space is build SPS. As for do we need a space based civilization,
I'd say the answer is yes, provided we wish to remain an advancing
industrial civilization. Of course those you were talking about who
would be opposed to space settlement tend to be opposed to this also.

> Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
> habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from
scratch.
> There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out there,
> why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building
your
> habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid mining
> operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a largeish
> lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You
may
> have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should be
> possible.

Given that the atmosphere is going to press outward in all directions
with a force of around 7 lbs/square inch, I'd feel more comfortable
living inside of a manufactured steel hull than some raw nickle iron
astroid material with some reinforcement.

IMO, being able to take a metallic asteroid and to convert it into steel wire, cable, plate and angle shapes is an essential step in achieving a viable space economy. We will need to build space ships as well as habitat modules and I see steel as the primary base material.

The first space build structures will be like shacks to us, but soon they will resemble more like luxury cruise ships with vast interiors, pools, etc. It is amazing what you can do with steel and some paint.

Using existing structures/pressure vessels also makes lots of sense.

Cheers,

Tom
From:
Mike Combs
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Wednesday, December 27, 2000 7:28 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: What if.......?
--- In
spacesettlers@egroups.com
, "Darren Brown" <
darren@p
...> wrote:
>
> Okay, to start, a while ago I discussed with Mike what I thought
was
> the problem that some, not all of the people pushing the idea of
> orbital habitats have with looking at reality, they seem to believe
> that life in a habitat is going to be some kind of paradise on
Earth
> or rather above Earth. That all the troubles and problems that
plague
> us down here will magically disappear as soon as they move into
their
> new habitat. They might get the advantages of a large city while
> having a back yard that looks out over a rustic idle but there is
no
> way it will be Shangri-La.
Well, I like what Marshal Savage had to say on this topic. He asked
us to imagine a cave man transported to the Middle ages. Meat
hanging in butcher shops! Huts warmed by fire places! To the
caveman's point of view, this is a paradise, but of course it leaves
a lot to be desired from our point of view. And even an inhabitant
of the Middle Ages would scoff at the idea he was living in a
paradise, what with the Black Death and the Spanish Inquisition and
all.
Then take that inhabitant of the Middle Ages and transport him to our
era. Meat wrapped in plastic in refrigerated displays! Central
heating AND air conditioning! Surely paradise! But again, we're
complaining about the crabgrass, and teen pregnancy, etc.
While agreeing that there are no utopias, Savage still insisted that
there can be quantum leaps upward in the standard of living, and that
was all space living would represent. Space settlers will have tons
of personal problems, but the whole thing is worth doing for no other
reason than the improvement in the standard of living.
On the topic of folks perhaps overselling space habitats, I heard one
writer say that the new frontier has always been oversold. The
turkeys didn't REALLY blacken the sky, and those hills weren't REALLY
made of gold. But the Westward Movement nonetheless was a worthwhile
event.
> What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we
want/need
> a space based civilisation?
I'd say the best proposal yet for what we will do for a living in
space is build SPS. As for do we need a space based civilization,
I'd say the answer is yes, provided we wish to remain an advancing
industrial civilization. Of course those you were talking about who
would be opposed to space settlement tend to be opposed to this also.
> Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
> habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from
scratch.
> There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out there,
> why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building
your
> habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid mining
> operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a largeish
> lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You
may
> have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should be
> possible.
Given that the atmosphere is going to press outward in all directions
with a force of around 7 lbs/square inch, I'd feel more comfortable
living inside of a manufactured steel hull than some raw nickle iron
astroid material with some reinforcement.

Hello Mike,

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Mike Combs" wrote:
>
> Well, I like what Marshal Savage had to say on this topic. He
>asked
> us to imagine a cave man transported to the Middle ages. Meat
> hanging in butcher shops! Huts warmed by fire places! To the
> caveman's point of view, this is a paradise, but of course it
leaves
> a lot to be desired from our point of view. And even an inhabitant
> of the Middle Ages would scoff at the idea he was living in a
> paradise, what with the Black Death and the Spanish Inquisition and
> all.
>
> Then take that inhabitant of the Middle Ages and transport him to
our
> era. Meat wrapped in plastic in refrigerated displays! Central
> heating AND air conditioning! Surely paradise! But again, we're
> complaining about the crabgrass, and teen pregnancy, etc.
>
> While agreeing that there are no utopias, Savage still insisted
that
> there can be quantum leaps upward in the standard of living, and
that
> was all space living would represent. Space settlers will have
tons
> of personal problems, but the whole thing is worth doing for no
other
> reason than the improvement in the standard of living.
>
> On the topic of folks perhaps overselling space habitats, I heard
one
> writer say that the new frontier has always been oversold. The
> turkeys didn't REALLY blacken the sky, and those hills weren't
REALLY
> made of gold. But the Westward Movement nonetheless was a
worthwhile
> event.
>
> > What do you do in space, what use is a habitat(s) and do we
> want/need
> > a space based civilisation?
>
> I'd say the best proposal yet for what we will do for a living in
> space is build SPS. As for do we need a space based civilization,
> I'd say the answer is yes, provided we wish to remain an advancing
> industrial civilization. Of course those you were talking about
who
> would be opposed to space settlement tend to be opposed to this
also.

I like that, it's an elegant way to put things and it has the virtue
of being right. The problems come if the hype and reality are too
far out of synch. Consider, in the 1940's 50's your country (and
mine) committed large numbers of troops to wars, even where you were
not directly attacked, the troops were committed to large scale
action with the resulting casualties. They did this for reasons
that were many and varied and for this argument irrelevant but scroll
forward to today and any time any country considers using force and
committing troops to a situation there is one extra thing to
consider, ITN, CNN, BBC World and all the other instant coverage
media companies, the US and to a degree here in Australia they
discovered just how much of an effect this can be starting with a
certain part of South East Asia. This shows itself not just in wars
but in all public decisions. If you have 1000 happy new inhabitants
of a being built habitat and 5 of them are ticked off for any reason
you can be certain they are the ones who will have their faces on the
TV. At first it'll be important to keep peoples expectations in line
with reality or you'll find yourself being swamped with the bottom
feeding section of the media as they all try to find somebody else to
didn't get their phone connected five minutes after ordering it or
had a toilet that didn't flush just right. And all the time there
will be a steady flow of neo-luddites trying to pull you out of the
sky, the two (luddite and reporter) will become a self perpetuating
nuisance. Yes I think our biggest battles are going to be human ones
not technical one, just ask the Shell oil company (or any company
that owns North Sea oil rigs) if public opinion can force you to make
technically bad decisions?

> > Some of the forum have been talking about the best way to build a
> > habitat and it seems that everybody wants to build it from
> scratch.
> > There are a lot of large and not so large lumps of metal out
there,
> > why not start with them and reshape to suit. Instead of building
> your
> > habitat and coating the outside with slag from your asteroid
mining
> > operation, why not hollow out and reshape the outside of a
largeish
> > lump of metal and as you mine, you make your habitat bigger. You
> may
> > have to reinforce the shell to handle the strain but that should
be
> > possible.
>
> Given that the atmosphere is going to press outward in all
directions
> with a force of around 7 lbs/square inch, I'd feel more comfortable
> living inside of a manufactured steel hull than some raw nickle
iron
> astroid material with some reinforcement.

Me too but a good solid manufactured hull inside and out with a good
thick layer of raw, reinforced astroid material in between, sounds
okay and easy to work with, your raw materials are just sitting there
waiting for you. Just picture a large mobile factory making its way
around the inside of your soon to be habitat with raw rock in front,
worked metal behind and reinforcing studs underneath, sorry above,
ahm under your feet....that is..., ur...between the... Sorry, but,
are we spinning yet? ;-))

Darren