I'm forwarding this post from another list for comments, please.

Monart
Starship Aurora

* * * * *

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:44:18 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ

I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
bias against nuclear development in space which
was not explained. I saw discussion concerning
the benefits of solar power out to a great distance
from the sun but much of the construction materials
for large space based habitats past Mars and the
asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
from the inner solar system. The vast majority of
mass in low gravity wells is in the form of cometary
material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.

The problems concerning populations doubling
every forty years are acknowledged to only be delayed
by moving into the nearby solar system. In reality
it does not directly benefit Earth population pressures
at all [the indirect benefits may be large however].
There has never been any serious talk of large masses
of people moving to space in order to relieve the Earth
of population pressures. The numbers of people you
would need to move are simply staggering. The most you
can hope for is to establish new off-Earth
civilizations from a vanishing small seed population
originating from the Earth. There are more people
in the rest of the world now then there was before
European colonization of the Americas. A small
number of people migrated to the Americas but
populations continued to grow outside and inside
of the Americas. Geometric population growth will
occur in space the same as it does on Earth. After
a geologically very short time the solar system will
feel population pressures the same as the Earth
does now. Long before that happens more seed
population groups will have moved outside of the
solar system.

Moon, Mars, and/or asteroid infrastructure will
need to be erected before large space based
habitats can be erected from materials originating
from space. Although the Moon and Mars have low
gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
platform, at a greatly reduced cost. Asteroids
in particular may require circular tracks for
artificial gravity health reasons. Economics
works in space like anywhere else. Industrial
processes will drive where and how habitats are
born during early development. At some point
luxury may allow untold types of habitats.

Securing the niche is always the hardest first
step. The resources and know how exist today
to begin the colonization of space. Big government
concerned with immediate day to day functions
and the next election may eventually allow
the private sector to proceed but it will always
be by permission, not by right.

I think the first steps towards a future in space
should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
and the single stage to orbit space plane programs.
Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
small asteroid companion in concert with a
permanently manned Mars colony. This combination
will establish a permanent technological infrastructure
which can build up indefinitely from there including
free-floating space structures if seen as economical
in light of industrial developments.

Dennis May

--- Monart Pon wrote:
> I'm forwarding this post from another list for comments, please.
>
> Monart
>
> Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:44:18 -0600
> From: Dennis May
> Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>
> Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ
>
> I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
> bias against nuclear development in space which
> was not explained. I saw discussion concerning
> the benefits of solar power out to a great distance
> from the sun but much of the construction materials
> for large space based habitats past Mars and the
> asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
> from the inner solar system. The vast majority of
> mass in low gravity wells is in the form of cometary
> material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
> rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
> could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.

For most stationary objects solar power would be the best bet in space but if
the object has to be able to be moved then nuclear would be the best system to
use. Particulary if it is going to need a bit of power and will be far from
the sun.

> The problems concerning populations doubling
> every forty years are acknowledged to only be delayed
> by moving into the nearby solar system. In reality
> it does not directly benefit Earth population pressures
> at all [the indirect benefits may be large however].
> There has never been any serious talk of large masses
> of people moving to space in order to relieve the Earth
> of population pressures. The numbers of people you
> would need to move are simply staggering. The most you
> can hope for is to establish new off-Earth
> civilizations from a vanishing small seed population
> originating from the Earth. There are more people
> in the rest of the world now then there was before
> European colonization of the Americas. A small
> number of people migrated to the Americas but
> populations continued to grow outside and inside
> of the Americas. Geometric population growth will
> occur in space the same as it does on Earth. After
> a geologically very short time the solar system will
> feel population pressures the same as the Earth
> does now. Long before that happens more seed
> population groups will have moved outside of the
> solar system.

There will eventually be population pressures in space but when they arise we
can just expand further. There will probably be population control measures
implemented in the areas that are a bit crowded although with high living
standards population growth isn't likely to be all that fast in dense areas
(some countries in europe actually have negative population growth). As for
moving people into space if we even get space travel to anywhere near the
regularity of air travel it would be trivial to do in about 5 years.

> Moon, Mars, and/or asteroid infrastructure will
> need to be erected before large space based
> habitats can be erected from materials originating
> from space. Although the Moon and Mars have low
> gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
> perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
> platform, at a greatly reduced cost. Asteroids
> in particular may require circular tracks for
> artificial gravity health reasons. Economics
> works in space like anywhere else. Industrial
> processes will drive where and how habitats are
> born during early development. At some point
> luxury may allow untold types of habitats.

At the moment bootstraping seems to be the best way to get into space.

> Securing the niche is always the hardest first
> step. The resources and know how exist today
> to begin the colonization of space. Big government
> concerned with immediate day to day functions
> and the next election may eventually allow
> the private sector to proceed but it will always
> be by permission, not by right.

The private sector is unlikely to do it on it's own. It will probably take a
mixture of government and private sector to actually pull off. Government to
fund some of the initial research and anything that has to be done but which
wont make a profit with the private sector doing what ever makes money. The
problem with companies is that if they wont see returns after 3 FY they don't
bother with it. This is something the free market worshipers haven't seemed to
get into their heads yet. Without someone to do the stuff that takes a long
time before any profits can be made the private sector wont do anything (those
companies that do wont be making a profit and will cease to exist).

> I think the first steps towards a future in space
> should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
> and the single stage to orbit space plane programs.
> Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
> small asteroid companion in concert with a
> permanently manned Mars colony. This combination
> will establish a permanent technological infrastructure
> which can build up indefinitely from there including
> free-floating space structures if seen as economical
> in light of industrial developments.

Nuclear thermal rockets (what most people are talking about when they refer to
nuclear rockets) are better then chemical rockets but only under conditions of
high payload and mission Delta-v such that the mass of the reactor is less then
the mass that extra chemical fuel would have been. SSTO is also a good idea
but might be a bit hard to do. TSTO is almost as good and a lot easier to do.
Bootstraping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying to
build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too much
(it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources though but
no one is going to pay for it). Mars we should leave to the Mars Society and
let them run the mission (or convince a government to do that).

You may ultimately be right, Mike, but I sure don't find your comments
very comforting. If we must rely on getting a grand slam --- huge
initial investment to commit to "go all the way" to create a minimum of 20
SPSs --- then we may find ourselves waiting forever for that grand slam.
Is there any political support for the public investment needed for that
grand slam, were it a government program? Is there any indication that
power companies would be willing to put that much money at risk?

What I would encourage everyone in this group to do is to think of
alternatives to the grand slam. What kinds of singles and doubles might
we be able to hit, instead of pinning all our hopes on the grand slam? It
may be for this reason that Ryan Healey made his comment about
bootstrapping.

I'm cautiously encouraged by the efforts of entrepreneurs such as Applied
Space Resources (c.f., http://www.appliedspace.com/), SpaceDev (c.f, http://www.spacedev.com/), and others. Though these firms have yet to really prove that they can
do it, the same could be said about the public sector with respect to
space resource utilization.

My hope is that by hitting singles, one after another, over a decade or
two, we'll finally get the ball rolling for space resource utilization.
Here are some examples of positive things that might happen over the next
decade that would contribute to lowering the threshold:
* Better launchers. Every year or two, a new launcher is inaugurated.
Recent examples include India's GSLV, Ariane V, Japan's H-2.
* Increased discovery rates for NEOs (c.f., http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/asteroid_toomany_011019-1.html)
* Miniaturization. Given a fixed capacity launcher, we'll be able to do
more and more.
* Better telepresence and robotics technology
* Hopefully, one of these private entities (e.g., SpaceDev, ASR) will do a
mission

You may be right about the need for the grand slam approach. I sure hope
that you're wrong, however.

Ron
*******

"Combs, Mike"
11/12/01 10:18 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: "'spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com'"
cc:
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] [Fwd: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's]

From: Ryan Healey [mailto:bestonnet_00@...]

Bootstraping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying
to
build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too
much
(it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources though
but
no one is going to pay for it).

To my mind, the only scenario that really make sense is that we build the
infrastructure needed to mine the moon and/or asteroids, and do major
manufacturing in space because we want to build enough SPS to meet global
needs for new energy. Then, having created all this infrastructure, we
find that building orbital habitats is relatively easy and economical.

Regards,

Mike Combs

If we have the infrastruture in orbit then building space colonies will be np.

Of course the infrastruture would be expenisve. That's why building it up to
support small scale operations then bringing it up to a larger scale is the
best way. Once there is activity like what would be needed for space tourism
the infrastruture would then be expanded as it would be the way to make money.

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:

Fowarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:32:04 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

I wrote (11/11):

>Although the Moon and Mars have low
>gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
>perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
>platform, at a greatly reduced cost.

Mike Combs wrote (11/12):

>Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built
>10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?

At some point hundreds of people will be involved
in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
orbital habitat is constructed. For reasons of
efficiency and health these people should spend as
much time as practical under a 1 G environment.
Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth.

Those doing sedentary work in particular should have
offices in rail cars, sleep, and eat while under 1 G.
It is by far cheaper to keep someone traveling in a
circle than to degrade their health and ship people
back and forth to the Earth.

I would expect that circle tracks will be a permanent
companion feature of all factories and outposts on low
G bodies with human workers. Mars has high enough gravity
this will likely be unnecessary. The Moon and nearby bodies
may not have this feature for some time but as settlements
get larger they are certain to appear.

On another topic: I would expect nuclear rockets to play
a pivotal roll in the settling of space. Getting to Mars
is no more time consuming than traveling the oceans of
the Earth given nuclear rockets. Mars has water-ice
ready to be mass driven to wherever needed. The Moon
may have some cometary water at the poles in deep craters
but Mars is certain to have a great deal more. Jupiter's
moons have plenty of water. Nuclear rockets are
clearly the preferred method of human travel to reduce
time in space between protective habitats. Dragging a
protective habitat with you is an extremely inefficient
means of travel. Shipping and time related efficiencies
apply to space as well as they do the Earth. Those who
can deliver the goods quickly at a reduced price will
ensure the commercial success of space. If it makes
sense to have an SST for commercial travel it certainly
makes even more sense to have nuclear rockets in space
travel. Slow intra-solar system travel will greatly
hamper economic progress.

Dennis May

From: Monart Pon [mailto:monart@...]

Fowarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs

Thanks.

From: Dennis May

I wrote (11/11):

>Although the Moon and Mars have low
>gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
>perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
>platform, at a greatly reduced cost.

Mike Combs wrote (11/12):

>Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built
>10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?

At some point hundreds of people will be involved
in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
orbital habitat is constructed.

I would disagree with "hundreds" (the NASA-Ames Space Settlement studies
assumed a lunar crew of only around a dozen or so supporting the
construction of a Stanford Torus), but agree the mining camps will certainly
precede the large, orbital habitats.

For reasons of
efficiency and health these people should spend as
much time as practical under a 1 G environment.

I agree 100%, but what does this have to do with the original objection? I
had written that one advantage of an orbital location over a planetary one
as a site for permanent settlement was that in orbit we could rotate to
simulate whatever gravity is desired, while on planetary surfaces we have to
take what we get. You began talking about sleeper cars on circular tracks.
Unless one can build habitats on the moon or Mars which spin around on
circular tracks and can accommodate 10,000 to 10,000,000 people, then
there's no use in arguing with the original point.

Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth.

Perhaps, but the transportation costs of this would still be significant.
This cost could be eliminated entirely by building structures in orbit which
rotate for artificial gravity. The transportation costs for shuttling
hundreds of people back and forth from the moon could pay for a great deal
of space construction.

I think the disconnect here is that you've decided building these circular
tracks and wheeled vehicles will for some reason be cheaper than building a
structure in space and setting it rotating. I'm not at all convinced this
would be the case, provided we're talking comparable capacities. It's true
that the Coriolis effect on the inner ear sets certain constraints, but this
only sets a minimum value on the rotation axis, not the mass of the
structure. The very first "construction shack" needn't necessarily be a
sphere or cylinder. It could be a dumbbell shape. It's rotation axis may
of necessity be as long as that of Island One, but such a structure could be
only a small fraction of the mass.

It is by far cheaper to keep someone traveling in a
circle than to degrade their health and ship people
back and forth to the Earth.

Agreed, but the cheapest option of all is to simulate gravity near the
construction site. There's more than one design out there which would
accomplish this with discarded Space Shuttle ETs. One needn't build Island
One just to provide workers with some spin gravity.

I would expect that circle tracks will be a permanent
companion feature of all factories and outposts on low
G bodies with human workers. Mars has high enough gravity
this will likely be unnecessary.

We can expect (or hope) that 1/3 G will be sufficient, but we cannot know
for sure until we actually perform the experiment.

Mars has water-ice
ready to be mass driven to wherever needed.

Mars would be a poor choice as a source of needed water. The gravity well
is much steeper than that of the moon, and we don't have a vacuum at the
surface which means mass driver operations will be problematic. The lunar
mass driver proposal was dependent on a unique dynamic characteristic of the
Earth-Moon L-2 point. There would be no corresponding point for Mars.
Payloads could not be launched into Mars orbit without orbit circularization
engines, which would mean the payloads would have to be much more
sophisticated, and far larger, than what O'Neill had proposed for the moon.

The lunar poles and NEOs would be far better sources of water for space
operations.

The Moon
may have some cometary water at the poles in deep craters
but Mars is certain to have a great deal more.

The undeniable fact that Mars has more may not be relevant if it's far more
difficult to get it away from Mars. The lunar ice might well be depleted in
a generation or so, but by then we would be more likely to be extracting
water from asteroids than exporting out the the steep gravity well of Mars.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Monart Pon [mailto:monart@...]
Fowarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs

Thanks.
From: Dennis May
I wrote (11/11):
>Although the Moon and Mars have low
>gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
>perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
>platform, at a greatly reduced cost.
Mike Combs
wrote (11/12):
>Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built
>10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?
At some point hundreds of people will be involved
in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
orbital habitat is constructed.

I would disagree with "hundreds" (the NASA-Ames Space Settlement studies assumed a lunar crew of only around a dozen or so supporting the construction of a Stanford Torus), but agree the mining camps will certainly precede the large, orbital habitats.

For reasons of
efficiency and health these people should spend as
much time as practical under a 1 G environment.

I agree 100%, but what does this have to do with the original objection? I had written that one advantage of an orbital location over a planetary one as a site for permanent settlement was that in orbit we could rotate to simulate whatever gravity is desired, while on planetary surfaces we have to take what we get. You began talking about sleeper cars on circular tracks. Unless one can build habitats on the moon or Mars which spin around on circular tracks and can accommodate 10,000 to 10,000,000 people, then there's no use in arguing with the original point.
Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth.

Perhaps, but the transportation costs of this would still be significant. This cost could be eliminated entirely by building structures in orbit which rotate for artificial gravity. The transportation costs for shuttling hundreds of people back and forth from the moon could pay for a great deal of space construction.

I think the disconnect here is that you've decided building these circular tracks and wheeled vehicles will for some reason be cheaper than building a structure in space and setting it rotating. I'm not at all convinced this would be the case, provided we're talking comparable capacities. It's true that the Coriolis effect on the inner ear sets certain constraints, but this only sets a minimum value on the rotation axis, not the mass of the structure. The very first "construction shack" needn't necessarily be a sphere or cylinder. It could be a dumbbell shape. It's rotation axis may of necessity be as long as that of Island One, but such a structure could be only a small fraction of the mass.
It is by far cheaper to keep someone traveling in a
circle than to degrade their health and ship people
back and forth to the Earth.

Agreed, but the cheapest option of all is to simulate gravity near the construction site. There's more than one design out there which would accomplish this with discarded Space Shuttle ETs. One needn't build Island One just to provide workers with some spin gravity.
I would expect that circle tracks will be a permanent
companion feature of all factories and outposts on low
G bodies with human workers. Mars has high enough gravity
this will likely be unnecessary.

We can expect (or hope) that 1/3 G will be sufficient, but we cannot know for sure until we actually perform the experiment.
Mars has water-ice
ready to be mass driven to wherever needed.

Mars would be a poor choice as a source of needed water. The gravity well is much steeper than that of the moon, and we don't have a vacuum at the surface which means mass driver operations will be problematic. The lunar mass driver proposal was dependent on a unique dynamic characteristic of the Earth-Moon L-2 point. There would be no corresponding point for Mars. Payloads could not be launched into Mars orbit without orbit circularization engines, which would mean the payloads would have to be much more sophisticated, and far larger, than what O'Neill had proposed for the moon.

The lunar poles and NEOs would be far better sources of water for space operations.

The Moon
may have some cometary water at the poles in deep craters
but Mars is certain to have a great deal more.

The undeniable fact that Mars has more may not be relevant if it's far more difficult to get it away from Mars. The lunar ice might well be depleted in a generation or so, but by then we would be more likely to be extracting water from asteroids than exporting out the the steep gravity well of Mars.

Regards,
Mike Combs

Personally I'm confident that once space tourism gets to over 1 000 people
(maybe that's too high or too low) per year it won't take long before we have a
significant presence.

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:

--- In spacesettlers, Monart Pon wrote:

> Fowarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs

Beamed power can provide as much power to a spaceship as a nuke
plant, and without as much weight. Also, lazer-pushed lightsails are
a good possibility.I suspect that nuke ships will only be useful for
those missions where having your ship independant of an external
power source is important. A millitary ship might be one such case.

Xenophile (who would like to see a space battle in a movie where the
fighters make realistic manuevers... which would look pretty cool 8^)

Forwarding Dennis May's response to Ryan Healey.

Monart Pon

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:15:20 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

I wrote (11/11):

>... Big government concerned with immediate day to day functions and the
>next election may eventually allow the private sector to proceed but it
>will always
>be by permission, not by right.

Ryan Healey wrote (11/13):

>The private sector is unlikely to do it on it's own. It will probably take
>a mixture of government and private sector to actually pull off.
>Government to fund some of the initial research and anything that has to be
>done but which won't make a profit with the private sector doing what ever
>makes money. The problem with companies is that if they won't see returns
>after 3 FY they don't bother with it. This is something the free market
>worshipers haven't seemed to get into their heads yet. Without someone to
>do the stuff that takes a long time before any profits can be made the
>private sector won't do anything (those
>companies that do won't be making a profit and will cease to exist).

Ryan confuses a free market with a mixed economy
market. In the mid to late 1800 large corporations
regularly issued bonds with 50, 75, and 100 year
maturities. Long term research projects were commonly
undertaken by large and small industries alike
[Edison and thousands of attempts at the light
bulb]. Wealthy individuals sponsored or helped
promising individuals in risky ventures [Edison
helping Ford with his internal combustion engine
automobile while working on his own electric car].
Private companies and individuals have solved problems
big government could not [the Wright Brothers].
In a free market companies can make long term plans
because the government isn't constantly interfering
with the sources and cost of credit, they aren't
flooded with ever changing regulations, they don't
have to get "permission" every time they make a
business decision, their competitors can't go to
the government for special favors or deals, and
the value of money [measures of wealth] don't
change by government fiat.

The eye toward a three year pay off is precisely
because big government can't be trusted, not the
free market. Who would have felt comfortable
investing in a medical education when Hillary was
attempting to confiscate 1/7th of the U.S. economy.
My 1st cousin did NOT start his own medical practice
and stayed in the military precisely because
of the uncertainty caused by an un-free market.

I wrote:

>I think the first steps towards a future in space
>should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
>and the single stage to orbit space plane programs.
>Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
>small asteroid companion in concert with a
>permanently manned Mars colony. ...

Ryan Healey wrote:

>Nuclear thermal rockets (what most people are talking about when they refer
>to nuclear rockets) are better then chemical rockets but only under
>conditions of
>high payload and mission Delta-v such that the mass of the reactor is less
>then the mass that extra chemical fuel would have been.

Until there is a space infrastructure re-usable nuclear
rockets have the advantage of being able to operate
using a single thermally heated propellant [usually
liquid hydrogen super-heated]. Chemical rocket
propellants will have to be manufactured in space or
hauled from the Earth. The oxidizer [Liquid Oxygen]
is heavy and moving it around is very energy expensive.
Hydrogen [from water] is super-abundant on Jupiter's
moons and to a lesser extent on Mars.

>SSTO [Single Stage to Orbit] is also a good idea
>but might be a bit hard to do. TSTO [Two Stages to
>Orbit] is almost as good and a lot easier to do.

The SSTO was first worked on in 1939 Germany. They
decided to do the V-2 rocket instead. Even two
stages versus single stage greatly complicates
the infrastructure requirements and makes each
trip to orbit a big deal. Single Stage to Orbit
makes it more along the lines of high performance
upper altitude spy planes being fueled up and sent
on their way. Low altitude refueling is no big
deal compared to dropping a single stage.

Ryan Healey wrote:

>Bootstrapping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying
>to build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too
>much (it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources
>though but no one is going to pay for it).

See the above discussion concerning long term
bonds in a free market.

Ryan Healey wrote:

>Mars we should leave to the Mars Society and let them run the mission (or
>convince a government to do that).

Mars is part of the big picture, particularly if
drawing from private investment and using the
plentiful resources of Mars enters the scheme of
things. There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years
worth of fuel at minimum. How could long term
private investors ignore a platform ready to house
an industrial machine the size of all the land
on Earth?

Dennis May

Forwarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs.

Monart Pon

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:23:02 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

I wrote:

>At some point hundreds of people will be involved
>in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
>orbital habitat is constructed.

Mike Combs wrote:

>I would disagree with "hundreds" (the NASA-Ames Space Settlement studies
>assumed a lunar crew of only around a dozen or so supporting the
>construction of a Stanford Torus), but agree the mining camps will
>certainly precede the large, orbital habitats.

I assume a Stanford Torus is small and intended to
be pre-built on Earth with the Moon resources
providing only shielding.

The large orbital habitats are quite a different
thing. They will require a real industrial
infrastructure.

I am an engineer at a custom metal fabricating
facility. Several of my relatives have worked in
mining or been engineers in heavy industry.

For real factory type settings they will necessarily
have to have almost daily shipments of spare parts.
Weekly shipments will cause work stoppages, monthly
shipments would likely cause the entire project to
collapse. Once you have mining and fabricating underway
it will still take a large number of people to do the many
other tasks real factory work requires. The Soviets
spent nearly all their time keeping their space stations
repaired much less produce anything with them. Real
world fabricating requires a great deal of down time
for repairs, if spare parts are not instantly available
even more down time is involved. Efficiency suffers
if you don't have the right tool for the right job or
the right repair person for the needed repair. I
would expect a dozen fabricators would be needed just
to keep the mining equipment and vehicles hauling miners
and supplies maintained. You would still need miners,
raw material production workers, finished metal
production workers, metal product fabricators, supply
and ordering specialists, habitat maintenance, supply
receiving, shipping out [launch specialists], repair
and refurbishing of incoming and outgoing space
vehicles, medical/dental, non-metal fabricating and
repair, food production/preparation, waste recycling,
etc. Every time you pull someone off production to do
the twenty other jobs needing to be done you have
stretched the time factor to useful production.
A dozen people may know how to do all the jobs needing
to be done but they do not have the critical mass
necessary to do the work efficiently or in a timely
manner.

I wrote:

>For reasons of efficiency and health these people should spend as much time
>as practical under a 1 G environment.

Mike Combs wrote:

>Unless one can build habitats on the moon or Mars which spin around on
>circular tracks and can
>accommodate 10,000 to 10,000,000 people, then there's no use in arguing
>with the original point.

How you get from where we are to where you want
to be is very much the point. The huge infrastructure
required for such building projects will mean dealing
with human health issues on a large scale before the
even larger scale becomes possible.

I wrote:

>Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
>to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
>traveling back to the Earth.

Mike Combs wrote:

>Perhaps, but the transportation costs of this would still be significant.
>This cost could be eliminated entirely by building structures in orbit
>which rotate for artificial gravity. The transportation costs for
>shuttling hundreds of
>people back and forth from the moon could pay for a great deal of space
>construction.

A very small shielded habitat can only house
a very small work crew. The kind of habitats
some have envisioned will require work crews
in the hundreds or thousands working for many
years. You would not want this structure
rotating while being constructed.

Until you have produced a large habitat with
sufficient mass for protection from radiation a
rotating habit is only fixing one of two health
problems. A circular track on the moon sheltered
from radiation fixes both problems. Those working
on the habitat during construction will need to go
somewhere to regain health, the infrastructure on
the moon or asteroids will need workers also, so
rotating crews would solve both problems.

I wrote:

>Mars has water-ice ready to be mass driven to wherever needed.

Mike Combs wrote:

>Mars would be a poor choice as a source of needed water. The gravity well
>is much steeper than that of the moon, and we don't have a vacuum at the
>surface
>which means mass driver operations will be problematic.

Mass drivers or light gas guns can push out projectiles
with ablation noses and steering rockets to put them
into whatever corrected orbits they later require.
Mars has the raw materials, the deep gravity well is
not much of a consideration once a nuclear/electric
infrastructure is built up. The small amount of ice
or water available from the moon means finding the
resources elsewhere shortly after the Moon has an
industrial infrastructure.

I see the entire buildup of space industrialization
as a series of tradeoffs involving lost time versus
up front expenses. The slower the build up the cheaper
it is but the longer it takes. Time is money so
building up slowly involves unseen losses. The
up front money will come slowly unless big government
gets off our backs. Only time will tell how much
we have lost by building up slowly. If the money
isn't coming or isn't reliable a small shielded
near Earth orbit rotating habitat may be the best
we can expect for a long time. If the resources
were available I would rather see an industrial
infrastructure built up on the Moon and Mars
prior to or in parallel with building space habitats.
The free market should decide the priorities and
what is actually built but we are far from a
free market situation.

Dennis May

--- Monart Pon wrote:
> Forwarding Dennis May's response to Ryan Healey.
>
> Ryan confuses a free market with a mixed economy
> market. In the mid to late 1800 large corporations
> regularly issued bonds with 50, 75, and 100 year
> maturities. Long term research projects were commonly
> undertaken by large and small industries alike
> [Edison and thousands of attempts at the light
> bulb]. Wealthy individuals sponsored or helped
> promising individuals in risky ventures [Edison
> helping Ford with his internal combustion engine
> automobile while working on his own electric car].
> Private companies and individuals have solved problems
> big government could not [the Wright Brothers].
> In a free market companies can make long term plans
> because the government isn't constantly interfering
> with the sources and cost of credit, they aren't
> flooded with ever changing regulations, they don't
> have to get "permission" every time they make a
> business decision, their competitors can't go to
> the government for special favors or deals, and
> the value of money [measures of wealth] don't
> change by government fiat.

There were also many problems created by the free market. For example the
Great Drepression was caused because there was no way to alter the value of
money to prevent hyperinflation. Since governments have started taking control
of the value of money it has been possible to easily stop a depression from
happening as has been done many times since the Great Depression.

In the 1920' which were heavily laise faire there was an average of about 600
bank failures a year in the US alone. By 1929 200 comporations control half
the US industry. 40% of the US wealth will be with 1% of people.

In 1933 it started getting better when a government that is willing to
legislate gets into power. A group of businessmen decide to take over the US
and make it a facist state but are stopped when General Smedley Butler reports
the offer they made him to Congress. That year the US goes off the gold
standard. In 1934 the economy of the US starts to improve and Sweden has got
out of the Great Depression as it followed Keyneian theory. In 1936 the top
tax rate is the US is 76% and Germany recovered from the Great depression due
to heavy government spending.

Interestingly, the free market caused the great depression then government got
out of it. Getting rid of the gold standard was what allowed the world to get
out of the depression (ever wondered why no one uses gold standard in wartime).

When one looks at how well behaved corporations are we find that those in the
heavily regulated sectors tend to be the best ones (e.g. the nuclear power
industry has been really good) whilst the unregulated ones are terrible (e.g.
MLM schemes).

> The eye toward a three year pay off is precisely
> because big government can't be trusted, not the
> free market. Who would have felt comfortable
> investing in a medical education when Hillary was
> attempting to confiscate 1/7th of the U.S. economy.
> My 1st cousin did NOT start his own medical practice
> and stayed in the military precisely because
> of the uncertainty caused by an un-free market.

Only a monopoly or a company with external support can continue with an
unprofitable project for more then 3 years and still exist. When government is
a monopoly at least those living under them have a choice but when corporations
are a monopoly almost no one gets a choice (competition has to be significant).

Personally I trust a democratic government a lot more then I trust most
corporations.

If you want to know what happens when a free market is implemented I suggest
you go to Chile and have a look around.

> Until there is a space infrastructure re-usable nuclear
> rockets have the advantage of being able to operate
> using a single thermally heated propellant [usually
> liquid hydrogen super-heated]. Chemical rocket
> propellants will have to be manufactured in space or
> hauled from the Earth. The oxidizer [Liquid Oxygen]
> is heavy and moving it around is very energy expensive.
> Hydrogen [from water] is super-abundant on Jupiter's
> moons and to a lesser extent on Mars.

If we are starting with the moon then the argument is useless as the moon
contains a lot more Oxygen then Hydrogen. Moving LOX around once you're in
space isn't that hard, it's getting into space that's the hard part. Nuclear
rockets are a good technology but we have to realise that for all we know we
might not be able to get them. If we can get nuclear we may actually be better
off with nuclear steam rockets. They get good performance without the cryo
storage requirements of H2(l) which can be very annoying.

> The SSTO was first worked on in 1939 Germany. They
> decided to do the V-2 rocket instead. Even two
> stages versus single stage greatly complicates
> the infrastructure requirements and makes each
> trip to orbit a big deal. Single Stage to Orbit
> makes it more along the lines of high performance
> upper altitude spy planes being fueled up and sent
> on their way. Low altitude refueling is no big
> deal compared to dropping a single stage.

SSTO is easy, it's making an SSTO reusuable that is the hard part because to be
able to reuse it you need to add things like heat shield, de-orbit fuel,
controls to land it, etc which can often remove all payload capacity.

> >Bootstrapping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying
> >to build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too
> >much (it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources
> >though but no one is going to pay for it).
>
> See the above discussion concerning long term
> bonds in a free market.

Bootstraping will probably be easier as it doesn't require a large amount of
money can would get profits faster.

> Ryan Healey wrote:
>
> >Mars we should leave to the Mars Society and let them run the mission (or
> >convince a government to do that).
>
> Mars is part of the big picture, particularly if
> drawing from private investment and using the
> plentiful resources of Mars enters the scheme of
> things. There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
> fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years
> worth of fuel at minimum. How could long term
> private investors ignore a platform ready to house
> an industrial machine the size of all the land
> on Earth?

Will we even manage to get fusion beyond breakeven?

As for Mars it isn't really all that good. Gravity well too steep,
Graviational field strength at surface the wrong value and it has an atmosphere
so it isn't really all that good. I'm more interested in it from a scientific
point of view.

--- Monart Pon wrote:
> Forwarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs.
>
> I assume a Stanford Torus is small and intended to
> be pre-built on Earth with the Moon resources
> providing only shielding.

No way. The Stanford Torus design is 1.8 km across and couldn't possibly be
pre-built from earth. In fact I'd be willing to say that trying that with
current launch vehicles would bankrupt the global economy.

It would be made almost entirely of lunar materials with only a very small
amount bought up from earth (I can't seem to get to the study on the net but
from what I can remember it is less then 100 kT coming up from earth that
actually goes into the station).

Ryan Healey wrote:

> --- Monart Pon wrote:
>
>>Forwarding Dennis May's response to Ryan Healey.
>>
>>Ryan confuses a free market with a mixed economy
>>market. In the mid to late 1800 large corporations
>>regularly issued bonds with 50, 75, and 100 year
>>maturities. Long term research projects were commonly
>>undertaken by large and small industries alike
>>[Edison and thousands of attempts at the light
>>bulb]. Wealthy individuals sponsored or helped
>>promising individuals in risky ventures [Edison
>>helping Ford with his internal combustion engine
>>automobile while working on his own electric car].
>>Private companies and individuals have solved problems
>>big government could not [the Wright Brothers].
>>In a free market companies can make long term plans
>>because the government isn't constantly interfering
>>with the sources and cost of credit, they aren't
>>flooded with ever changing regulations, they don't
>>have to get "permission" every time they make a
>>business decision, their competitors can't go to
>>the government for special favors or deals, and
>>the value of money [measures of wealth] don't
>>change by government fiat.
>>
>
> There were also many problems created by the free market. For example the
> Great Drepression was caused because there was no way to alter the value of
> money to prevent hyperinflation. Since governments have started taking control
> of the value of money it has been possible to easily stop a depression from
> happening as has been done many times since the Great Depression.
>
> In the 1920' which were heavily laise faire there was an average of about 600
> bank failures a year in the US alone. By 1929 200 comporations control half
> the US industry. 40% of the US wealth will be with 1% of people.
>
> In 1933 it started getting better when a government that is willing to
> legislate gets into power. A group of businessmen decide to take over the US
> and make it a facist state but are stopped when General Smedley Butler reports
> the offer they made him to Congress. That year the US goes off the gold
> standard. In 1934 the economy of the US starts to improve and Sweden has got
> out of the Great Depression as it followed Keyneian theory. In 1936 the top
> tax rate is the US is 76% and Germany recovered from the Great depression due
> to heavy government spending.
>
> Interestingly, the free market caused the great depression then government got
> out of it. Getting rid of the gold standard was what allowed the world to get
> out of the depression (ever wondered why no one uses gold standard in wartime).
>
> When one looks at how well behaved corporations are we find that those in the
> heavily regulated sectors tend to be the best ones (e.g. the nuclear power
> industry has been really good) whilst the unregulated ones are terrible (e.g.
> MLM schemes).
>
>>The eye toward a three year pay off is precisely
>>because big government can't be trusted, not the
>>free market. Who would have felt comfortable
>>investing in a medical education when Hillary was
>>attempting to confiscate 1/7th of the U.S. economy.
>>My 1st cousin did NOT start his own medical practice
>>and stayed in the military precisely because
>>of the uncertainty caused by an un-free market.
>>
>
> Only a monopoly or a company with external support can continue with an
> unprofitable project for more then 3 years and still exist. When government is
> a monopoly at least those living under them have a choice but when corporations
> are a monopoly almost no one gets a choice (competition has to be significant).
>
> Personally I trust a democratic government a lot more then I trust most
> corporations.
>
> If you want to know what happens when a free market is implemented I suggest
> you go to Chile and have a look around.
>
>>Until there is a space infrastructure re-usable nuclear
>>rockets have the advantage of being able to operate
>>using a single thermally heated propellant [usually
>>liquid hydrogen super-heated]. Chemical rocket
>>propellants will have to be manufactured in space or
>>hauled from the Earth. The oxidizer [Liquid Oxygen]
>>is heavy and moving it around is very energy expensive.
>>Hydrogen [from water] is super-abundant on Jupiter's
>>moons and to a lesser extent on Mars.
>>
>
> If we are starting with the moon then the argument is useless as the moon
> contains a lot more Oxygen then Hydrogen. Moving LOX around once you're in
> space isn't that hard, it's getting into space that's the hard part. Nuclear
> rockets are a good technology but we have to realise that for all we know we
> might not be able to get them. If we can get nuclear we may actually be better
> off with nuclear steam rockets. They get good performance without the cryo
> storage requirements of H2(l) which can be very annoying.
>
>>The SSTO was first worked on in 1939 Germany. They
>>decided to do the V-2 rocket instead. Even two
>>stages versus single stage greatly complicates
>>the infrastructure requirements and makes each
>>trip to orbit a big deal. Single Stage to Orbit
>>makes it more along the lines of high performance
>>upper altitude spy planes being fueled up and sent
>>on their way. Low altitude refueling is no big
>>deal compared to dropping a single stage.
>>
>
> SSTO is easy, it's making an SSTO reusuable that is the hard part because to be
> able to reuse it you need to add things like heat shield, de-orbit fuel,
> controls to land it, etc which can often remove all payload capacity.
>
>>>Bootstrapping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying
>>>to build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too
>>>much (it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources
>>>though but no one is going to pay for it).
>>>
>>See the above discussion concerning long term
>>bonds in a free market.
>>
>
> Bootstraping will probably be easier as it doesn't require a large amount of
> money can would get profits faster.
>
>>Ryan Healey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mars we should leave to the Mars Society and let them run the mission (or
>>>convince a government to do that).
>>>
>>Mars is part of the big picture, particularly if
>>drawing from private investment and using the
>>plentiful resources of Mars enters the scheme of
>>things. There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
>>fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years
>>worth of fuel at minimum. How could long term
>>private investors ignore a platform ready to house
>>an industrial machine the size of all the land
>>on Earth?
>>
>
> Will we even manage to get fusion beyond breakeven?
>
> As for Mars it isn't really all that good. Gravity well too steep,

It's not THAT bad, it's a bit stronger than the moon, but much less
than the earth. It's easily SSTO with a decent payload too.

> Graviational field strength at surface the wrong value and it has an atmosphere
> so it isn't really all that good.

Yeah, it's a rotten radiation shield, practically a vacuum at 1% of
earth normal.

Still, atleast the atmosphere contains CO2: 2CO + O2 is a rocket
fuel although not a fantastic one; and there are traces of water
vapour.

> I'm more interested in it from a scientific
> point of view.

I'm more interested in Phobos or Deimos. Phobos may well have water
deposits. Treasure! Rocket fuel! The surface gravity is tiny too.

And, there's radiation shielding there. Both moons are
carbonaceous, so they probably have every element you can name. And
Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, and Deimos is near the edge of
Mars's gravity field, so you could probably go there, refuel and
head off for the belt, come back, have a great time.

Mars has got to be a great orbit for a settlement. You'd need a
very well equipped expedition to risk it though. Mars itself might
be useful, although I'm not sure what for. It has no natural energy
source I can see. Mars SPS? Also, there are concerns about the low
gravity. We don't know what 1/3g will do. It's probably better than
0g, but a centrifugal 1g is easy to make in space.

>>Dennis May
>>
>

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

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

Ryan Healey wrote:

> Personally I'm confident that once space tourism gets to over 1 000 people
> (maybe that's too high or too low) per year it won't take long before we have a
> significant presence.

Right now, that looks like the way its going to go. I'm wondering
what we can do to make it happen in 5-10 years rather than 20. A
cheap launcher, or a neat way to use an existing launcher would do
it. Stick a crew cabin on an Energia would theoretically give a
ticket price of about $180,000; but I've a feeling that the price
would come down with quantity- the Russians would fall over
themselves if you want to launch 10-20x in one year, probably you
could negotiate them down by a factor of 2-4x on price; that's on
the edge of what people would pay.

Still, I'm not sure what the peak acceleration is on an Energia,
and the reliability is suspect.

Also, not sure how to handle reentry, they'd probably want to go
both ways.

There's almost a business case right there. You'd need to sort out
the hotel too somehow. Get the Hilton on the job or something.
Where can you put 500 people on orbit right now anyway?

There's a tonne of problems, but all of them are soluble.

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

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

Sounds about right.

Still quite a bit of lifting but not all that much.

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:

--- Ian Woollard wrote:
> > As for Mars it isn't really all that good. Gravity well too steep,
>
> It's not THAT bad, it's a bit stronger than the moon, but much less
> than the earth. It's easily SSTO with a decent payload too.

It is much less the the earth's but it still has a higher escape velocity then
the moon and asteriods so it probably wouldn't be able to compete against them.
SSTO on mars would be extremely easy to do and still get a very good payload.

> > Graviational field strength at surface the wrong value and it has an
> atmosphere
> > so it isn't really all that good.
>
> Yeah, it's a rotten radiation shield, practically a vacuum at 1% of
> earth normal.
>
> Still, atleast the atmosphere contains CO2: 2CO + O2 is a rocket
> fuel although not a fantastic one; and there are traces of water
> vapour.

It isn't very hard to convert CO2 into CO and O2 and they do make pretty good
rocket fuel. You still need some H2 to ignite it but not very much.

> > I'm more interested in it from a scientific
> > point of view.
>
> I'm more interested in Phobos or Deimos. Phobos may well have water
> deposits. Treasure! Rocket fuel! The surface gravity is tiny too.

They're asteriods so they are interesting for industrial applications. Mars on
the otherhand only has the planetary sciences aspect which will eventually be
studied but will probably only be done when it's cheap enough for universities
to go to mars regaulary (or set one up there).

> And, there's radiation shielding there. Both moons are
> carbonaceous, so they probably have every element you can name. And
> Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, and Deimos is near the edge of
> Mars's gravity field, so you could probably go there, refuel and
> head off for the belt, come back, have a great time.

That's a possibility, at least until we get spacecraft that can go direct to
the belt (on a minimum energy trajectory probably).

> Mars has got to be a great orbit for a settlement. You'd need a
> very well equipped expedition to risk it though. Mars itself might
> be useful, although I'm not sure what for. It has no natural energy
> source I can see. Mars SPS? Also, there are concerns about the low
> gravity. We don't know what 1/3g will do. It's probably better than
> 0g, but a centrifugal 1g is easy to make in space.

There's enough sunlight for solar power to work well, if you're far enough away
from the planet you don't get eclipsed very often, MHO is close to the belt
both in travel time and Dv, it's right next to two rocks with pretty much any
volitiles you need, it's right above a great science lab which could also be a
tourist destination (even if just for those that live above it).

The Mars Society have a satellite that is providing 1/3 g to lab rats so that
will give us some indication as to whether they can survive it. It won't tell
us anything certain about humans but it will give us some indications as to
whether 1/3 g is OK. I'm willing to say that 1/3 g is better then 0 g but may
not be as good as 1 g.

More from Dennis May, responding to Mike Combs.

Monart
~ * ~
Starship Aurora

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: SpaceSettlement FAQ's
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:55:39 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

Mike Combs wrote (11/15):

> ...the recommendations of the
> NASA-Ames/Stanford Summer Study Group. They assumed the metal and glass
> structure of the habitat as well must come from space-derived resources
> to be economical. For myself, I'd have to say that building such a torus
> at even 1/2 or 1/3 of the scale but entirely from Earth-boosted components
> doesn't sound very likely to me, even if the shielding did come from space
> resources (but granted, that's the lion's share of the total mass).

I don't doubt that a dozen men could build
such a structure and I don't doubt that
a Study Group found it feasible to do so.
I do however doubt that it is economically
sound to wait the many years it will take
for such a small crew to pull off such a
task. I work with a group of fabricators
who are more qualified to do such work than
any existing astronauts. They could do it
but NASA has a history of underestimating
costs and time frames by hundreds if not
thousands of percent. They may envision
the project taking a few years, I would say
a few decades is more likely. Underfunding
and underestimates drive prices even higher,
cause inefficiencies, loss of moral, loss of
support, and worst of all huge unseen time
related losses.

The first habitat built will require
re-building or replacement before the puny
infrastructure could produce a second one.
The huge number of re-supply missions for
such a puny payback in infrastructure does
not adequately address long term needs.
Economies of scale apply to space as they
do anywhere.

I wrote:

> A circular track on the moon sheltered
> from radiation fixes both problems.

Mike Combs wrote:

> Again, you seem to proceed from the idea that this circular track and
> large, high-speed vehicle is going to be easier to construct than a small,
> rotating, shielded habitat in orbit. Both construction programs would take
> place in vacuum, and well away from the Earth. I don't see
> the lunar track being all that much cheaper. Once a small habitat is set
> rotating in orbit, it basically will rotate forever.

It comes back to a disagreement over the
critical mass of people required to create
an industrial infrastructure in space. I
see it taking 10-20 times more people than
the estimates of NASA think tanks. I would
have to see a prototype materials production
factory function for an entire production
run of creating such a habitat before I would
believe their estimates. Then after they
produce one run I would double the actual
required time to take into account problems
not encountered in the first run done under
ideal laboratory conditions.

I cannot emphasize enough that time is as
critical a component in economic calculations
as is upfront money. A well thought out
initial Moon infrastructure will make
everything done afterward function much
faster and much more efficiently.

Mike Combs wrote:

> And if there were no such thing as CC type NEOs, I'd agree that Mars would
> be next.

I'm sure they will be of great value but
the time issue involved in developing them
for mining should be a large consideration.
I would expect investors will see Mars
as further but having larger long term
promise. Until the first CC type NEO is
mined they will remain largely a question
mark regarding how efficiently and
economically it can be done.

B.T.W. I created a work of art in 1984
showing the mining of a CC type NEO.
It was part of a college class. I want
them mined but I am not convinced they
would be the most logical place to look
for resources at the beginning of
an expanding infrastructure.

Dennis May

More from Dennis May, responding to Ron Healey.

Monart
~ * ~
Starship Aurora

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:35:56 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

Ryan Healey wrote (11/15):

> There were also many problems created by the free market. For example the
> Great Depression...Keynesian theory. Interestingly, the free market
> caused the great depression then government got out of it. Getting rid of
> the gold standard was what allowed the world to get out of the depression...

I gather you are a Keynesian socialist.
Your view of what a free market is and
what brought about the Great Depression
is considerably different than the
view held by those who support a free
market. Keynesian theory has been
discredited in academia but remains
influential in big government circles.
I suggest you find a copy of "Gold and
Freedom" by Richard M. Salsman. Except
during the "War Between the States"
time period the United States had 75 years
of uninterrupted growth while on a gold
standard. The bubbles of instability
during this time of unparalleled growth
were directly traceable to States
interfering with inter-state banking.
Later on big government interfered with
the economy creating arbitrary anti-trust
regulations followed by the income tax
and credit policies entirely disconnected
from production. This free flowing credit
from nowhere caused a boom borne of
mal-investment followed by a bust known as
the Great Depression. Further intervention
prolonged and deepened the Depression.
Investors slowly returned to the market
after the confiscation of accumulated
wealth slowed and onerous illegal legislation
and directives were thrown out or blocked by
the Supreme Court. The return to legal
stability once again allowed investors to
plan ahead. The prevention of FDR packing
the Supreme Court was an important turning
point.

Ryan Healey wrote:

> Only a monopoly or a company with external support can continue with an
> unprofitable project for more then 3 years and still exist.

Profitable companies invest part of their
profits into growth prospects for the
future. There is nothing difficult to
understand about this. Some companies
look 25 or more years ahead even in this
mixed economy. In a free economy companies
can plan even further ahead as they did
in the 1885 time frame.

Ryan Healey wrote:

> When government is a monopoly at least those living under them have a
> choice but when corporations are a monopoly almost no one gets a choice
> (competition has to be significant).

When government is a monopoly you have a choice?
I don't hardly think so. They also have the
option of deadly force to back up their monopoly,
i.e. their legal tender system.

> If you want to know what happens when a free market is implemented I
> suggest you go to Chile and have a look around.

Chile has always had a less free market than the
United States and a number of other nations.
Their one bright moment has been some privatization
of industry and partial privatization of their
version of Social Security all while being attacked
by communist guerilla insurgents. A free market
includes many factors. Chile is still a mixed
economy at best.

I wrote:

> There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
> fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years worth of fuel at
> minimum.

Ryan Healey wrote:

>Will we even manage to get fusion beyond breakeven?

Hybrid fission/fusion reactors and breeder reactors
are used in concert. The theory was worked out by Edward
Teller and company more than ten years ago. Break
even is assured, technological implementation is the
only real question. There are no roadblocks or
unknown plasma instability problems like in present
fusion only programs.

Dennis May

--- Monart Pon wrote:
> More from Dennis May, responding to Ron Healey.
>
> Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:35:56 -0600
> From: Dennis May
> Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>
> Ryan Healey wrote (11/15):
>
> I gather you are a Keynesian socialist.
> Your view of what a free market is and
> what brought about the Great Depression
> is considerably different than the
> view held by those who support a free
> market.

First line seems like an ad homenim attack.

> Keynesian theory has been
> discredited in academia but remains
> influential in big government circles.
> I suggest you find a copy of "Gold and
> Freedom" by Richard M. Salsman. Except
> during the "War Between the States"
> time period the United States had 75 years
> of uninterrupted growth while on a gold
> standard.

Keynesian theory has been modified to take into account the impossibility of
full employment. It hasn't been rejected yet. In fact very few academics
considered it discredited, it's just that those that do tend to be very vocal
about it.

> The bubbles of instability
> during this time of unparalleled growth
> were directly traceable to States
> interfering with inter-state banking.

There is more interference now and far more stability then there was back then.

> Later on big government interfered with
> the economy creating arbitrary anti-trust
> regulations followed by the income tax
> and credit policies entirely disconnected
> from production.

If the majority of people didn't want that they would vote a government that
does it out.

> This free flowing credit
> from nowhere caused a boom borne of
> mal-investment followed by a bust known as
> the Great Depression.

Did you not notice me mentioning that Sweden got out of the Great Depression
because they used Keyneian like policies? Keyneian theory has a big advantage
over the others in that it actually allows depressions to be understood.

> Further intervention
> prolonged and deepened the Depression.

The republicans were in power when it started and they didn't do anything. It
was only when they lost and the government started to interfere that it started
to turn around.

> Ryan Healey wrote:
>
> Profitable companies invest part of their
> profits into growth prospects for the
> future. There is nothing difficult to
> understand about this. Some companies
> look 25 or more years ahead even in this
> mixed economy. In a free economy companies
> can plan even further ahead as they did
> in the 1885 time frame.

Some companies can do that but unless it is cheap for them and won't lower
their profits by a large amount they won't do it.

> When government is a monopoly you have a choice?
> I don't hardly think so. They also have the
> option of deadly force to back up their monopoly,
> i.e. their legal tender system.

You can vote a new government in. Also they don't usually use deadly force and
if you don't like 'em you can leave and find another country.

Supply of countries is a free market so you shouldn't argue with the choices.

> Chile has always had a less free market than the
> United States and a number of other nations.
> Their one bright moment has been some privatization
> of industry and partial privatization of their
> version of Social Security all while being attacked
> by communist guerilla insurgents. A free market
> includes many factors. Chile is still a mixed
> economy at best.

Yes, but why don't you look at what happened when their market become more
'free'. There is an interesting overview of what happened in Chile at
http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp001280.html

> Hybrid fission/fusion reactors and breeder reactors
> are used in concert. The theory was worked out by Edward
> Teller and company more than ten years ago. Break
> even is assured, technological implementation is the
> only real question. There are no roadblocks or
> unknown plasma instability problems like in present
> fusion only programs.

I know that, but will they be any better then standard fission reactors.

From: Dennis May

I don't doubt that a dozen men could build
such a structure and I don't doubt that
a Study Group found it feasible to do so.

I'm sure the Ames study assumed several hundred workers.

They may envision
the project taking a few years, I would say
a few decades is more likely.

The Ames study said 22 years. I'm sure 30 is closer to the mark.

I'm sure they (NEOs) will be of great value but
the time issue involved in developing them
for mining should be a large consideration.

But why assume development of Martian mining would occur quicker?

I would expect investors will see Mars
as further but having larger long term
promise.

What investors are going to be looking at is the magnitude of the
investment. The magnitude of the investment will vary with the delta-V
involved. The delta-V from the surface of Mars to free space will always be
greater than the delta-V from the surface of an asteroid into free space.

The only conceivable reason for saying Mars trumps asteroids since there's a
greater amount of total available mass is if there's reason to think we'll
completely exhaust the resources of all NEOs in the near term. Personally,
I don't think such exhaustion will happen for quite a few generations.

Until the first CC type NEO is
mined they will remain largely a question
mark regarding how efficiently and
economically it can be done.

But why isn't the mining of Mars considered an equally big question mark?
We've never tried that before either.

B.T.W. I created a work of art in 1984
showing the mining of a CC type NEO.
It was part of a college class. I want
them mined but I am not convinced they
would be the most logical place to look
for resources at the beginning of
an expanding infrastructure.

There are many who would disagree. We must be cautious about allowing
planetary chauvinism to influence our thinking.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Dennis May
I don't doubt that a dozen men could build
such a structure and I don't doubt that
a Study Group found it feasible to do so.
I'm sure the Ames study assumed several hundred workers.

They may envision
the project taking a few years, I would say
a few decades is more likely.

The Ames study said 22 years. I'm sure 30 is closer to the mark.
I'm sure they
(NEOs)
will be of great value but
the time issue involved in developing them
for mining should be a large consideration.

But why assume development of Martian mining would occur quicker?
I would expect investors will see Mars
as further but having larger long term
promise.

What investors are going to be looking at is the magnitude of the investment. The magnitude of the investment will vary with the delta-V involved. The delta-V from the surface of Mars to free space will always be greater than the delta-V from the surface of an asteroid into free space.

The only conceivable reason for saying Mars trumps asteroids since there's a greater amount of total available mass is if there's reason to think we'll completely exhaust the resources of all NEOs in the near term. Personally, I don't think such exhaustion will happen for quite a few generations.

Until the first CC type NEO is
mined they will remain largely a question
mark regarding how efficiently and
economically it can be done.

But why isn't the mining of Mars considered an equally big question mark? We've never tried that before either.
B.T.W. I created a work of art in 1984
showing the mining of a CC type NEO.
It was part of a college class. I want
them mined but I am not convinced they
would be the most logical place to look
for resources at the beginning of
an expanding infrastructure.

There are many who would disagree. We must be cautious about allowing planetary chauvinism to influence our thinking.

Regards,
Mike Combs

Sorry, Ryan, I didn't mean to write "Ron".
Monart
Monart Pon wrote:
More from Dennis May, responding to Ron Healey.
Monart
~ * ~
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>

Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Space Settlement FAQ's
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:35:56 -0600
From: Dennis May
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Ryan Healey wrote (11/15):
> There were also many problems created by the free market. For example the
> Great Depression...Keynesian theory. Interestingly,the free market
> caused the great depression then government got out of it. Getting rid of
> the gold standard was what allowed the world to get out of thedepression...
I gather you are a Keynesian socialist.
Your view of what a free market is and
what brought about the Great Depression
is considerably different than the
view held by those who support a free
market. Keynesian theory has been
discredited in academia but remains
influential in big government circles.
I suggest you find a copy of "Gold and
Freedom" by Richard M. Salsman. Except
during the "War Between the States"
time period the United States had 75 years
of uninterrupted growth while on a gold
standard. The bubbles of instability
during this time of unparalleled growth
were directly traceable to States
interfering with inter-state banking.
Later on big government interfered with
the economy creating arbitrary anti-trust
regulations followed by the income tax
and credit policies entirely disconnected
from production. This free flowing credit
from nowhere caused a boom borne of
mal-investment followed by a bust known as
the Great Depression. Further intervention
prolonged and deepened the Depression.
Investors slowly returned to the market
after the confiscation of accumulated
wealth slowed and onerous illegal legislation
and directives were thrown out or blocked by
the Supreme Court. The return to legal
stability once again allowed investors to
plan ahead. The prevention of FDR packing
the Supreme Court was an important turning
point.
Ryan Healey wrote:
> Only a monopoly or a company with external support can continuewith an
> unprofitable project for more then 3 years and still exist.
Profitable companies invest part of their
profits into growth prospects for the
future. There is nothing difficult to
understand about this. Some companies
look 25 or more years ahead even in this
mixed economy. In a free economy companies
can plan even further ahead as they did
in the 1885 time frame.
Ryan Healey wrote:
> When government is a monopoly at least those living under themhave a
> choice but when corporations are a monopoly almost no one getsa choice
> (competition has to be significant).
When government is a monopoly you have a choice?
I don't hardly think so. They also have the
option of deadly force to back up their monopoly,
i.e. their legal tender system.
> If you want to know what happens when a free market is implementedI
> suggest you go to Chile and have a look around.
Chile has always had a less free market than the
United States and a number of other nations.
Their one bright moment has been some privatization
of industry and partial privatization of their
version of Social Security all while being attacked
by communist guerilla insurgents. A free market
includes many factors. Chile is still a mixed
economy at best.
I wrote:
> There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
> fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years worth of fuelat
> minimum.
Ryan Healey wrote:
>Will we even manage to get fusion beyond breakeven?
Hybrid fission/fusion reactors and breeder reactors
are used in concert. The theory was worked out by Edward
Teller and company more than ten years ago. Break
even is assured, technological implementation is the
only real question. There are no roadblocks or
unknown plasma instability problems like in present
fusion only programs.
Dennis May

Combs, Mike wrote:

>
> *From:* Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
>
> > As for Mars it isn't really all that good. Gravity well too steep,
>
> It's not THAT bad, it's a bit stronger than the moon, but much less
> than the earth.
>
> It would be close to twice as strong, yes? Lunar gravity is 1/6th, Mars
> gravity is a bit over 1/3rd.

The escape velocity of Mars is about 5km/s so yes.

> And
> Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, and Deimos is near the edge of
> Mars's gravity field, so you could probably go there, refuel and
> head off for the belt, come back, have a great time.
>
> I always argue with the notion of Mars as a way station to the belt
> (being at the bottom of a gravity well makes you "further away" even if
> you're closer in actual distance), but I think a much better case can be
> made for Deimos as a way station. I think you're onto something here.

According to my calculations, an object at Deimos's radius has an
escape velocity of ~1900 m/s. But the orbital velocity of Deimos is
1346 m/s giving an escape from Mars orbit for 560 m/s which is
really pretty tiny by rocketry standards.

The surface escape velocity of Deimos itself is only 5.7 m/s - i.e.
you could jump off! What a cool place to visit!

At Phobos's radius there is an escape velocity of 3091km/s but an
orbital velocity of 2.14 km/s. Therefore escape from Mars orbit is
about 950m/s which is minute. Escape velocity is 10m/s- which might
mean they'll lose less tourists.

I'd imagine a settlement in high Mars orbit would be in easy reach
of both moons, and the Mars surface, as well as continuous solar
energy (somewhat weaker than the earth, but quite useable.) If
Phobos actually has water then that's probably a better place to be
living than high earth orbit; this side of the main asteroid belt
anyway.

> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

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

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