I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group might be mildly
interested:

I agree heartily with Mark Whittington ("Missing the Big Picture,"
Space News 5 May) that space settlement is a goal truly worthy of a $15
billion/year space program. If I may offer a slight change of course:
the Moon and Mars are great places for science and exploration but
lousy places to live. Our goal should be orbital space settlements:
kilometer scale spacecraft housing thousands of people each, initially
in earth orbit and later throughout the solar system. Princeton
professor Gerard O'Neill proved that these are possible, although very
expensive. True, many materials are easier to obtain on the lunar or
martian surface as opposed to orbit, but near-earth asteroids can
supply ample materials and some are energetically closer to Earth orbit
than the Moon is. In most other aspects, orbital colonies are vastly
superior to lunar or martian colonies. Consider:

- orbital colonies have ample solar energy 24/7 rather than half time.
- large pressurized structures will be much easier to build in 0g.
- orbital colonies can be much closer to Earth, vastly simplifying
logistics, particularly in comparison with Mars.
- while orbital colonies can be rotated to supply any desirable
psuedo-gravity level, Mars and the Moon have much weaker gravity than
Earth with unknown consequences on developing children.
- near the axis of rotation orbital colonists can enjoy 0g recreation
(and manufacturing).
- the view from many orbits (particularly near Earth, Saturn and
Jupiter) is absolutely fantastic, and always changing.
- the surface of Mars and the Moon combined is roughly equal to the
surface area of Earth, whereas the materials from a single large
asteroid can build orbital colonies with a livable surface area of at
least 500 times the surface area of Earth (yes, five hundred time,
that's not a misprint).

The problem, of course, is inadequate Earth-to-orbit transportation.
NASA should be spending at least half it's budget on this and cut
whatever else needs to be cut. In particular, I suggest:

- a robust propulsion and materials R&D program
- improving the usability of test and launch facilities and making them
available to private industry
- a program to buy the first 10-15 orbital launches of any new US
launch vehicle. This effectively pays for a flight test program and
will allow private developers to borrow development funds. The
taxpayer only pays for success (contrast this with the flightless
aerospace plane, X33, and X34). Note that a stimulus for sub-orbital
launch does not appear necessary, the X-Prize and potential tourist
market seem to be adequate.
- a robust program to identify and minimize damage to the atmosphere
from future large scale launch activity.

In any case, our future can be in orbit. We can, and should, build
thousands of orbital space colonies and bring this solar system fully
to life.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

Al,

I don't think Whittington would disagree with you. As
he stated in his article: "It means establishment of,
not just space stations ir bases, but of human
settlements on the Moon, Mars and other places found
to be suitable". Your proposal definitely fits in the
other places.

The lunar plan he outlined he stated was just an
example of how one such program may be implemented. I
think the overall point is one I agree with. That an
incremental approach is needed, with specific goals
that need to be met at each step.

His arguement is that once we have any step made in
making an established presence in space, the rest of
the settlement types will follow. I believe this
includes orbital colonies.

I agree that in the long term, orbital colonies make
the most sense. However, the incremental nature of
our space program needs something that allows
politicians and bureaucrats to mark off clearly
defined goals as accomplished. Going the lunar path
allows for easy, clearly marked steps to follow.

Instead of arguing the merits of moon vs orbital vs
mars, I think it may be better to outline an example
of easy to reach steps with an attached outlined
timeline.

If I remember correctly, Victoriatangoman had started
work on something of this nature...

Ryan Z

--- Al Globus wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group might be
mildly
> interested:

Could you post a link to the original article?

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Zelnio wrote:
> Al,
>
> I don't think Whittington would disagree with you. As
> he stated in his article: "It means establishment of,
> not just space stations ir bases, but of human
> settlements on the Moon, Mars and other places found
> to be suitable". Your proposal definitely fits in the
> other places.
>
> The lunar plan he outlined he stated was just an
> example of how one such program may be implemented. I
> think the overall point is one I agree with. That an
> incremental approach is needed, with specific goals
> that need to be met at each step.
>
> His arguement is that once we have any step made in
> making an established presence in space, the rest of
> the settlement types will follow. I believe this
> includes orbital colonies.
>
> I agree that in the long term, orbital colonies make
> the most sense. However, the incremental nature of
> our space program needs something that allows
> politicians and bureaucrats to mark off clearly
> defined goals as accomplished. Going the lunar path
> allows for easy, clearly marked steps to follow.
>
> Instead of arguing the merits of moon vs orbital vs
> mars, I think it may be better to outline an example
> of easy to reach steps with an attached outlined
> timeline.
>
> If I remember correctly, Victoriatangoman had started
> work on something of this nature...
>
> Ryan Z
>

I'm definitely reading between the lines because I haven't read
Whittington's article, but I can't see how we can get to the Habitat
stage without previously settling the moon.

The way I see it, we need a robust presence in LEO from which to
stage our future expansion. Can ISS serve as the platform? I don't
know, although I doubt it. I think the LEO station should be larger
and capable of accomodating much more crew.

Then I think we need to be actively engaged on the moon in order to
start an industrial base there. Human, robotic, or mixed, but still
we have to be involved there. Once there for industrial reasons it
becomes easier to piggyback scientific projects on the existing
infrastructure or vice versa.

Mars? Hmm, maybe it's the raison d'etre for the development of long
range transport. This is how we piggyback on that technology for NEO
mining missions.

Then, and only then, do we have the necessary infrastructure to
proceed with Habitat development, but that doesn't mean that we have
to have 1,000's of scientist living on the Moon, but somebody's got
to be there.

TangoMan

Could some one please explain whether an asteroid, if it can be manned or mined will also have other geographical formations?
An ignoramaus

From: Ryan Zelnio
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Space News Letter to Editor

Al,

I don't think Whittington would disagree with you. As
he stated in his article: "It means establishment of,
not just space stations ir bases, but of human
settlements on the Moon, Mars and other places found
to be suitable". Your proposal definitely fits in the
other places.

The lunar plan he outlined he stated was just an
example of how one such program may be implemented. I
think the overall point is one I agree with. That an
incremental approach is needed, with specific goals
that need to be met at each step.

His arguement is that once we have any step made in
making an established presence in space, the rest of
the settlement types will follow. I believe this
includes orbital colonies.

I agree that in the long term, orbital colonies make
the most sense. However, the incremental nature of
our space program needs something that allows
politicians and bureaucrats to mark off clearly
defined goals as accomplished. Going the lunar path
allows for easy, clearly marked steps to follow.

Instead of arguing the merits of moon vs orbital vs
mars, I think it may be better to outline an example
of easy to reach steps with an attached outlined
timeline.

If I remember correctly, Victoriatangoman had started
work on something of this nature...

Ryan Z

--- Al Globus wrote:
> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group
> might be mildly
> interested:
>
> I agree heartily with Mark Whittington ("Missing the
> Big Picture,"
> Space News 5 May) that space settlement is a goal
> truly worthy of a $15
> billion/year space program. If I may offer a slight
> change of course:
> the Moon and Mars are great places for science and
> exploration but
> lousy places to live. Our goal should be orbital
> space settlements:
> kilometer scale spacecraft housing thousands of
> people each, initially
> in earth orbit and later throughout the solar
> system. Princeton
> professor Gerard O'Neill proved that these are
> possible, although very
> expensive. True, many materials are easier to obtain
> on the lunar or
> martian surface as opposed to orbit, but near-earth
> asteroids can
> supply ample materials and some are energetically
> closer to Earth orbit
> than the Moon is. In most other aspects, orbital
> colonies are vastly
> superior to lunar or martian colonies. Consider:
>
> - orbital colonies have ample solar energy 24/7
> rather than half time.
> - large pressurized structures will be much easier
> to build in 0g.
> - orbital colonies can be much closer to Earth,
> vastly simplifying
> logistics, particularly in comparison with Mars.
> - while orbital colonies can be rotated to supply
> any desirable
> psuedo-gravity level, Mars and the Moon have much
> weaker gravity than
> Earth with unknown consequences on developing
> children.
> - near the axis of rotation orbital colonists can
> enjoy 0g recreation
> (and manufacturing).
> - the view from many orbits (particularly near
> Earth, Saturn and
> Jupiter) is absolutely fantastic, and always
> changing.
> - the surface of Mars and the Moon combined is
> roughly equal to the
> surface area of Earth, whereas the materials from a
> single large
> asteroid can build orbital colonies with a livable
> surface area of at
> least 500 times the surface area of Earth (yes, five
> hundred time,
> that's not a misprint).
>
> The problem, of course, is inadequate Earth-to-orbit
> transportation.
> NASA should be spending at least half it's budget on
> this and cut
> whatever else needs to be cut. In particular, I
> suggest:
>
> - a robust propulsion and materials R&D program
> - improving the usability of test and launch
> facilities and making them
> available to private industry
> - a program to buy the first 10-15 orbital launches
> of any new US
> launch vehicle. This effectively pays for a flight
> test program and
> will allow private developers to borrow development
> funds. The
> taxpayer only pays for success (contrast this with
> the flightless
> aerospace plane, X33, and X34). Note that a stimulus
> for sub-orbital
> launch does not appear necessary, the X-Prize and
> potential tourist
> market seem to be adequate.
> - a robust program to identify and minimize damage
> to the atmosphere
> from future large scale launch activity.
>
> In any case, our future can be in orbit. We can,
> and should, build
> thousands of orbital space colonies and bring this
> solar system fully
> to life.
>
> ---------------------
> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because
> they weren't
> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought
> "Well, dinosaurs
> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary.
> Maybe I'll should
> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing
> systems to detect
> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space
> colonies to spread
> beyond Earth to insure life would survive a
> planetary catastrophe.
>
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions
> and are not the
> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>

Fiona,

This topic is rather large and I am unsure of your
question. I would suggest if your interested in the
subject of asteroid utilization to start by looking at
http://www.permanent.com/.

If your interested in asteroid geology, there are
numerous planetary science textbooks which talk on
this matter. You can also look at the geology of an
asteroid we have had a nice close view of by visiting
the NEAR website http://near.jhuapl.edu/ or their more
broad near eath object web page:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov

I hope that helps to address your question.

Ryan

--- Fiona Sawyer wrote:

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 11:27 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group might be
> mildly
>> interested:
>
> Could you post a link to the original article?

I have it in hard copy. Sorry.

>
> TangoMan
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 11:42 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> I'm definitely reading between the lines because I haven't read
> Whittington's article, but I can't see how we can get to the Habitat
> stage without previously settling the moon.

Actually, I don't see how the Moon helps much, except as a source of
materials. There, perhaps the Moon is best, but one needs to trade
against Near-Earth-Objects (NEOs). NEOs have a greater range of
materials, some are energetically closer to Earth orbit, and 'launch'
from an NEO is even easier than from the Moon. Building up in small
steps towards an orbital habitat can be done in reasonably low Earth
orbit, which is quite a bit easier to get to than the Moon.

>
> The way I see it, we need a robust presence in LEO from which to
> stage our future expansion. Can ISS serve as the platform?

Too expensive and in the wrong orbit. The orbit was chosen so existing
Soviet era launch sites can reach it. An equitorial orbit is quite a
bit easier to get to (from an equitorial launch site) because of the
additional velocity from the Earth's rotation.

> I don't
> know, although I doubt it. I think the LEO station should be larger
> and capable of accomodating much more crew.
>

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

I just realized I forgot a key advantage of orbital settlements. Since
orbital settlements can be fairly close to Earth they are in a much
better position to provide value to Earth customers; e.g., tourism,
space solar power, and 0g manufactured products.

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 04:27 PM, Al Globus wrote:

> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group might be mildly
> interested:
>
> I agree heartily with Mark Whittington ("Missing the Big Picture,"
> Space News 5 May) that space settlement is a goal truly worthy of a $15
> billion/year space program. If I may offer a slight change of course:
> the Moon and Mars are great places for science and exploration but
> lousy places to live. Our goal should be orbital space settlements:
> kilometer scale spacecraft housing thousands of people each, initially
> in earth orbit and later throughout the solar system. Princeton
> professor Gerard O'Neill proved that these are possible, although very
> expensive. True, many materials are easier to obtain on the lunar or
> martian surface as opposed to orbit, but near-earth asteroids can
> supply ample materials and some are energetically closer to Earth orbit
> than the Moon is. In most other aspects, orbital colonies are vastly
> superior to lunar or martian colonies. Consider:
>
> - orbital colonies have ample solar energy 24/7 rather than half time.
> - large pressurized structures will be much easier to build in 0g.
> - orbital colonies can be much closer to Earth, vastly simplifying
> logistics, particularly in comparison with Mars.
> - while orbital colonies can be rotated to supply any desirable
> psuedo-gravity level, Mars and the Moon have much weaker gravity than
> Earth with unknown consequences on developing children.
> - near the axis of rotation orbital colonists can enjoy 0g recreation
> (and manufacturing).
> - the view from many orbits (particularly near Earth, Saturn and
> Jupiter) is absolutely fantastic, and always changing.
> - the surface of Mars and the Moon combined is roughly equal to the
> surface area of Earth, whereas the materials from a single large
> asteroid can build orbital colonies with a livable surface area of at
> least 500 times the surface area of Earth (yes, five hundred time,
> that's not a misprint).
>
> The problem, of course, is inadequate Earth-to-orbit transportation.
> NASA should be spending at least half it's budget on this and cut
> whatever else needs to be cut. In particular, I suggest:
>
> - a robust propulsion and materials R&D program
> - improving the usability of test and launch facilities and making them
> available to private industry
> - a program to buy the first 10-15 orbital launches of any new US
> launch vehicle. This effectively pays for a flight test program and
> will allow private developers to borrow development funds. The
> taxpayer only pays for success (contrast this with the flightless
> aerospace plane, X33, and X34). Note that a stimulus for sub-orbital
> launch does not appear necessary, the X-Prize and potential tourist
> market seem to be adequate.
> - a robust program to identify and minimize damage to the atmosphere
> from future large scale launch activity.
>
> In any case, our future can be in orbit. We can, and should, build
> thousands of orbital space colonies and bring this solar system fully
> to life.
>
> -
> ---------------------
> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
> beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
>
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 04:59 PM, Ryan Zelnio wrote:

> Al,
>
> I don't think Whittington would disagree with you. As
> he stated in his article: "It means establishment of,
> not just space stations ir bases, but of human
> settlements on the Moon, Mars and other places found
> to be suitable". Your proposal definitely fits in the
> other places.

Yes, but the focus is important. In any case, I presented my case as a
small change of direction, not a rebuttal
>
> Instead of arguing the merits of moon vs orbital vs
> mars, I think it may be better to outline an example
> of easy to reach steps with an attached outlined
> timeline.

That's another letter, but here goes:

1. Suborbital tourism
2. Superior orbital vehicle with NASA money and private work (as
outlined in my letter)
3. Orbital sports facility paid for by TV advertising
4. Orbital tourism
5. 0g retirement homes for wealthy folk who don't want to live in wheel
chairs
6. Asteroidal or lunar mining
7. First small habitats for folk that will have children
8. Colonize the solar system
9. Generation ships to the nearest stars

3 and 4 may reverse order
6 and 7 may reverse order

>
> If I remember correctly, Victoriatangoman had started
> work on something of this nature...
>
> Ryan Z
>
> --- Al Globus wrote:
>> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group
>> might be mildly
>> interested:
>>
>> I agree heartily with Mark Whittington ("Missing the
>> Big Picture,"
>> Space News 5 May) that space settlement is a goal
>> truly worthy of a $15
>> billion/year space program. If I may offer a slight
>> change of course:
>> the Moon and Mars are great places for science and
>> exploration but
>> lousy places to live. Our goal should be orbital
>> space settlements:
>> kilometer scale spacecraft housing thousands of
>> people each, initially
>> in earth orbit and later throughout the solar
>> system. Princeton
>> professor Gerard O'Neill proved that these are
>> possible, although very
>> expensive. True, many materials are easier to obtain
>> on the lunar or
>> martian surface as opposed to orbit, but near-earth
>> asteroids can
>> supply ample materials and some are energetically
>> closer to Earth orbit
>> than the Moon is. In most other aspects, orbital
>> colonies are vastly
>> superior to lunar or martian colonies. Consider:
>>
>> - orbital colonies have ample solar energy 24/7
>> rather than half time.
>> - large pressurized structures will be much easier
>> to build in 0g.
>> - orbital colonies can be much closer to Earth,
>> vastly simplifying
>> logistics, particularly in comparison with Mars.
>> - while orbital colonies can be rotated to supply
>> any desirable
>> psuedo-gravity level, Mars and the Moon have much
>> weaker gravity than
>> Earth with unknown consequences on developing
>> children.
>> - near the axis of rotation orbital colonists can
>> enjoy 0g recreation
>> (and manufacturing).
>> - the view from many orbits (particularly near
>> Earth, Saturn and
>> Jupiter) is absolutely fantastic, and always
>> changing.
>> - the surface of Mars and the Moon combined is
>> roughly equal to the
>> surface area of Earth, whereas the materials from a
>> single large
>> asteroid can build orbital colonies with a livable
>> surface area of at
>> least 500 times the surface area of Earth (yes, five
>> hundred time,
>> that's not a misprint).
>>
>> The problem, of course, is inadequate Earth-to-orbit
>> transportation.
>> NASA should be spending at least half it's budget on
>> this and cut
>> whatever else needs to be cut. In particular, I
>> suggest:
>>
>> - a robust propulsion and materials R&D program
>> - improving the usability of test and launch
>> facilities and making them
>> available to private industry
>> - a program to buy the first 10-15 orbital launches
>> of any new US
>> launch vehicle. This effectively pays for a flight
>> test program and
>> will allow private developers to borrow development
>> funds. The
>> taxpayer only pays for success (contrast this with
>> the flightless
>> aerospace plane, X33, and X34). Note that a stimulus
>> for sub-orbital
>> launch does not appear necessary, the X-Prize and
>> potential tourist
>> market seem to be adequate.
>> - a robust program to identify and minimize damage
>> to the atmosphere
>> from future large scale launch activity.
>>
>> In any case, our future can be in orbit. We can,
>> and should, build
>> thousands of orbital space colonies and bring this
>> solar system fully
>> to life.
>>
>>
> -
>>
>> ---------------------
>> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because
>> they weren't
>> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought
>> "Well, dinosaurs
>> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary.
>> Maybe I'll should
>> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing
>> systems to detect
>> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space
>> colonies to spread
>> beyond Earth to insure life would survive a
>> planetary catastrophe.
>>
>> Al Globus
>> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>>
>> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions
>> and are not the
>> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>>
>>
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 01:36 AM, Fiona Sawyer wrote:

> Could some one please explain whether an asteroid, if it can be manned
> or mined will also have other geographical formations?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'other geographical formations.'

> An ignoramaus
>
> From: Ryan Zelnio
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Space News Letter to Editor
>
> Al,
>
> I don't think Whittington would disagree with you. As
> he stated in his article: "It means establishment of,
> not just space stations ir bases, but of human
> settlements on the Moon, Mars and other places found
> to be suitable". Your proposal definitely fits in the
> other places.
>
> The lunar plan he outlined he stated was just an
> example of how one such program may be implemented. I
> think the overall point is one I agree with. That an
> incremental approach is needed, with specific goals
> that need to be met at each step.
>
> His arguement is that once we have any step made in
> making an established presence in space, the rest of
> the settlement types will follow. I believe this
> includes orbital colonies.
>
> I agree that in the long term, orbital colonies make
> the most sense. However, the incremental nature of
> our space program needs something that allows
> politicians and bureaucrats to mark off clearly
> defined goals as accomplished. Going the lunar path
> allows for easy, clearly marked steps to follow.
>
> Instead of arguing the merits of moon vs orbital vs
> mars, I think it may be better to outline an example
> of easy to reach steps with an attached outlined
> timeline.
>
> If I remember correctly, Victoriatangoman had started
> work on something of this nature...
>
> Ryan Z
>
> --- Al Globus wrote:
>> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group
>> might be mildly
>> interested:
>>
>> I agree heartily with Mark Whittington ("Missing the
>> Big Picture,"
>> Space News 5 May) that space settlement is a goal
>> truly worthy of a $15
>> billion/year space program. If I may offer a slight
>> change of course:
>> the Moon and Mars are great places for science and
>> exploration but
>> lousy places to live. Our goal should be orbital
>> space settlements:
>> kilometer scale spacecraft housing thousands of
>> people each, initially
>> in earth orbit and later throughout the solar
>> system. Princeton
>> professor Gerard O'Neill proved that these are
>> possible, although very
>> expensive. True, many materials are easier to obtain
>> on the lunar or
>> martian surface as opposed to orbit, but near-earth
>> asteroids can
>> supply ample materials and some are energetically
>> closer to Earth orbit
>> than the Moon is. In most other aspects, orbital
>> colonies are vastly
>> superior to lunar or martian colonies. Consider:
>>
>> - orbital colonies have ample solar energy 24/7
>> rather than half time.
>> - large pressurized structures will be much easier
>> to build in 0g.
>> - orbital colonies can be much closer to Earth,
>> vastly simplifying
>> logistics, particularly in comparison with Mars.
>> - while orbital colonies can be rotated to supply
>> any desirable
>> psuedo-gravity level, Mars and the Moon have much
>> weaker gravity than
>> Earth with unknown consequences on developing
>> children.
>> - near the axis of rotation orbital colonists can
>> enjoy 0g recreation
>> (and manufacturing).
>> - the view from many orbits (particularly near
>> Earth, Saturn and
>> Jupiter) is absolutely fantastic, and always
>> changing.
>> - the surface of Mars and the Moon combined is
>> roughly equal to the
>> surface area of Earth, whereas the materials from a
>> single large
>> asteroid can build orbital colonies with a livable
>> surface area of at
>> least 500 times the surface area of Earth (yes, five
>> hundred time,
>> that's not a misprint).
>>
>> The problem, of course, is inadequate Earth-to-orbit
>> transportation.
>> NASA should be spending at least half it's budget on
>> this and cut
>> whatever else needs to be cut. In particular, I
>> suggest:
>>
>> - a robust propulsion and materials R&D program
>> - improving the usability of test and launch
>> facilities and making them
>> available to private industry
>> - a program to buy the first 10-15 orbital launches
>> of any new US
>> launch vehicle. This effectively pays for a flight
>> test program and
>> will allow private developers to borrow development
>> funds. The
>> taxpayer only pays for success (contrast this with
>> the flightless
>> aerospace plane, X33, and X34). Note that a stimulus
>> for sub-orbital
>> launch does not appear necessary, the X-Prize and
>> potential tourist
>> market seem to be adequate.
>> - a robust program to identify and minimize damage
>> to the atmosphere
>> from future large scale launch activity.
>>
>> In any case, our future can be in orbit. We can,
>> and should, build
>> thousands of orbital space colonies and bring this
>> solar system fully
>> to life.
>>
>>
>
> -
>>
>> ---------------------
>> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because
>> they weren't
>> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought
>> "Well, dinosaurs
>> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary.
>> Maybe I'll should
>> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing
>> systems to detect
>> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space
>> colonies to spread
>> beyond Earth to insure life would survive a
>> planetary catastrophe.
>>
>> Al Globus
>> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>>
>> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions
>> and are not the
>> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>>
>>
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 11:42 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> > I'm definitely reading between the lines because I haven't read
> > Whittington's article, but I can't see how we can get to the
Habitat
> > stage without previously settling the moon.
>
> Actually, I don't see how the Moon helps much, except as a source
of
> materials. There, perhaps the Moon is best, but one needs to
trade
> against Near-Earth-Objects (NEOs). NEOs have a greater range of
> materials, some are energetically closer to Earth orbit,
and 'launch'
> from an NEO is even easier than from the Moon. Building up in
small
> steps towards an orbital habitat can be done in reasonably low
Earth
> orbit, which is quite a bit easier to get to than the Moon.

You're correct about the variety of NEO material, and their delta-v
advantage, but the Hohmann orbit launch windows needed to realize
those advantageous delta-v orbits will be few and far between.

Considering that the bulk of the raw materials will be ilmenite,
olivine, pyroxene, and plagioglase minerals, and the Moon is closest
in proximity to supply then, and also factoring in the time value of
money, I can't see a plausible case being made for NEO retrieval of
these minerals.

I don't believe it would be cost-effective to mass-ship hundreds of
thousands of tons of NEO raw material during the rare launch windows
in order to be refined into metals and alloys in cislunar space.

OTOH, gas liquification equipment sent to NEO's to harvest the
volitiles and then ship them back to cis-lunar space in their liquid
form seems to be more efficient notwithstanding that there really is
no orbital alternative.

With respect to delta-v disadvantage of the moon, with enough volume
of material shipped, the implementation of mass driver technology
will arguably lower the costs of launch and erode the delta-v
disadvantage of the NEOs. This development further enhances the Moon
as a "Just In Time" supplier of material that an NEO won't be able
to match.

As this lunar infrastructure is developed I see other activities
that can be piggybacked onto the existing infrastructure, and thus a
lunar settlement is probably a precursor to an orbital Habitat, but
the advantages of the Habitat, as you rightly pointed out, far out
weigh those of the Moon or Mars, and given enough infrastructure
build up, the population in Habitats will surpass the outposts on
the Moon.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:

> That's another letter, but here goes:
>
> 1. Suborbital tourism
> 2. Superior orbital vehicle with NASA money and private work (as
> outlined in my letter)
> 3. Orbital sports facility paid for by TV advertising

Can you flesh this out more? What kind of sports? Team or
individual?

Will the players live in orbit or will we shuttle them there for the
game and then being them back?

Will they be full time astronauts and in their free time go the to
sports facility to be part time 0-G athletes whose games are
televised?

Will it be a new game specific to 0-G or a transplanted Earth game?

What will the advertising pay for? The launch of the facility, or
the launching of the players? If the latter, who pays for the
facility and associated costs?

Doesn't this step presuppose an LEO station?

> 4. Orbital tourism

I picture sub-orbital tourism to be a ride to the edge of space in
order to experience 0-G and the view.

How is orbital tourism different other than going higher? If that's
all it is, why do you consider it to be a significant milestone?

> 5. 0g retirement homes for wealthy folk who don't want to live in
wheel
> chairs

Doesn't this presuppose an existing station, or do you just put the
retired folk in plastic bubbles :) to float in space :)

> 6. Asteroidal or lunar mining

Shouldn't this come much earlier, or are you launching all of that
mass from Earth to build the abovementioned facilities.

> 7. First small habitats for folk that will have children
> 8. Colonize the solar system
> 9. Generation ships to the nearest stars
>
> 3 and 4 may reverse order
> 6 and 7 may reverse order
>

I realize that there isn't much glamour in building infrastructrure
in orbit, but I just can't see how these plans are realized without
existing infrastructure being in place.

IMHO, the best things NASA could do, would be to develop the housing
and transportation infrastructure in orbit and keep extending that
infrastructure outwards from the Earth.

Then subsidize private enterprise with lower than cost-recovery
rates, in whatever ventures the private interests wish to advance.
Same goes for the other National Space Agencies. But don't pick
winners and losers (or it'll be a Boeing/LockMart duopoly) And make
the participation criteria open to all and if scarcity develops,
then let the bidding (marketplace) raise the rates to such a point
that an equilibrium develops.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers, "victoriatangoman" wrote:

> Can you flesh this out more?

There is a bit about sports at SpaceFuture: www.spacefuture.com

> What kind of sports? Team or individual?

Some of each, I would imagine.

> Will the players live in orbit or will we shuttle them there for
> the game and then being them back?

I suspect that at first they will be workers who would stay on months-
long tours of duty. Perhaps the various space hotels will each
maintain a team, and the televised games will themselves be great
advertising. Later on there could be full-time, pro athletes who
live in orbit.

> Will they be full time astronauts and in their free time go the to
> sports facility to be part time 0-G athletes whose games are
> televised?

See above. ^_^

> Will it be a new game specific to 0-G or a transplanted Earth game?

Again, some of each. 3-D, weightless soccer, plus some other stuff.

> What will the advertising pay for? The launch of the facility, or
> the launching of the players?

The facility, the uniforms and such.

> If the latter, who pays for the facility and associated costs?

Um...

> Doesn't this step presuppose an LEO station?

I'll get to the rest of this in a day or two.

Xenophile (if I told you about the last few days...)

victoriatangoman wrote:

"
You're correct about the variety of NEO material, and their delta-v
advantage, but the Hohmann orbit launch windows needed to realize
those advantageous delta-v orbits will be few and far between.
"

True enough. However, there's a nuance to which I'd like to draw
attention. It is not possible to get down to the surface of the Moon
with a xenon arc thruster, but it is possible to reach some NEOs with such
equipment. Electrical propulsion systems are more efficient than
chemical propulsion systems, and they may be safer too. One might be
willling to endure a higher delta-V requirement to reach a NEO than to
reach the surface of Luna because to reach the NEO one can utilize the
much more efficient propulsion system. Chemical propulsion systems seem
to explode with alarming frequency (e.g., recent problem with CONTOUR
probe).

It is not possible to utilize Hohmann transfer orbits with low-thrust
electrical propulsion systems, because Hohmann transfer requires large
impulse thrusts that are not achievable by electrical propulsion. Rather,
electrical propulsion systems utilize continuous-thrusting trajectories.

Of course, as many have pointed out before, getting to a NEO takes a lot
more time than getting to Luna, and that's certainly a huge disadvantage
to NEO development vis a vis Luna development.

Ron

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 03:43 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> With respect to delta-v disadvantage of the moon, with enough volume
> of material shipped, the implementation of mass driver technology
> will arguably lower the costs of launch and erode the delta-v
> disadvantage of the NEOs. This development further enhances the Moon
> as a "Just In Time" supplier of material that an NEO won't be able
> to match.
>

I am certainly no opponent of lunar mining. However, the mass drivers
envisioned by O'Neill were very large. Multiple towers spread out over
kilometers. Although you get a lot of material once it's up and
running, I'd be more comfortable with a development scheme that could
start returning useful material with a small investment and
incrementally build with parallelism. Retrieving small asteroids, or
little bits of large ones, fits this better. Actually, the first
asteroidal return mission just blasted off, and there are plans for
robotic lunar materials return.

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 04:10 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
>> That's another letter, but here goes:
>>
>> 1. Suborbital tourism
>> 2. Superior orbital vehicle with NASA money and private work (as
>> outlined in my letter)
>> 3. Orbital sports facility paid for by TV advertising
>
> Can you flesh this out more? What kind of sports? Team or
> individual?

The shuttle can hold about 10, with two needed to fly it. Assuming it
flies again, we could have up to 4v4 team sports as long as the shuttle
pilot and commander can handle the video. As to what sport -- that's
fun to speculate about. Soccer and racketball seem to need the fewest
modifications to the rules to work in 0g.
>
> Will the players live in orbit or will we shuttle them there for the
> game and then being them back?

To draw big crowds you need big names, so shuttle existing sports stars
up.
>
> What will the advertising pay for?

The olympics pulls in billions of advertising revenue. It would be
nice to get some figures for the revenue generated by major sporting
events (super bowel, world cup, olympics) but I don't have the details.

>
> Doesn't this step presuppose an LEO station?

The sports facility IS a LEO station. You need something big (like the
interior of a shuttle ET) so you probably don't want to launch the
facility.

>
>> 4. Orbital tourism
>
> I picture sub-orbital tourism to be a ride to the edge of space in
> order to experience 0-G and the view.
>
> How is orbital tourism different other than going higher?
> If that's
> all it is, why do you consider it to be a significant milestone?

What would you pay more for: a ride on a great roller coaster or a week
in Hawaii? Which would, on the average, be more significant?

Also, obviously, an orbital tourist business is a lot harder to do and
much closer to the launch facilities we need for colonization.
>
>> 5. 0g retirement homes for wealthy folk who don't want to live in
> wheel
>> chairs
>
> Doesn't this presuppose an existing station, or do you just put the
> retired folk in plastic bubbles :) to float in space :)

Again, it IS a space station (actually, a space colony).
>
>> 6. Asteroidal or lunar mining
>
> Shouldn't this come much earlier, or are you launching all of that
> mass from Earth to build the abovementioned facilities.

The above facilities don't need extraterrestrial materials. They
aren't all that big and (with the possible exception of 5) orbit below
the van Allen belts and don't need all that much shielding.

>
>> 7. First small habitats for folk that will have children
>> 8. Colonize the solar system
>> 9. Generation ships to the nearest stars
>>
>> 3 and 4 may reverse order
>> 6 and 7 may reverse order
>>
>
> I realize that there isn't much glamour in building infrastructrure
> in orbit, but I just can't see how these plans are realized without
> existing infrastructure being in place.
>
> IMHO, the best things NASA could do, would be to develop the housing
> and transportation infrastructure in orbit and keep extending that
> infrastructure outwards from the Earth.

It's too soon. The transportation facilities aren't up to it. That
was Reagan's huge mistake with the ISS. He believed the fantasy that
the shuttle was a cheap, reliable, operational transportation system.
Once you have that, some sort of space station makes sense, but not
before.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- In spacesettlers, "victoriatangoman" wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers, Al Globus wrote:

>> 4. Orbital tourism

> I picture sub-orbital tourism to be a ride to the edge of space in
> order to experience 0-G and the view.

This is the way I see it, too. But not for very long. However, it
sure beats the Concorde for point-to-point transport.

> How is orbital tourism different other than going higher? If that's
> all it is, why do you consider it to be a significant milestone?

It's harder to do, and it is needed for anything that requires more
than 15 minutes or so of weightlessness (like the sports).

>> 5. 0g retirement homes for wealthy folk who don't want to live in
>> wheel chairs

> Doesn't this presuppose an existing station, or do you just put the
> retired folk in plastic bubbles :) to float in space :)

I have to admit that I haven't given this a lot of thought.

>> 6. Asteroidal or lunar mining

> Shouldn't this come much earlier, or are you launching all of that
> mass from Earth to build the abovementioned facilities.

Well, some of the abovementioned stuff isn't so far beyond what
SpaceIslandGroup and such are planning, so can probably be done
before the NEO mining.

Xenophile (who just wishes that things would GET MOVING!)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:

> > How is orbital tourism different other than going higher? If
that's
> > all it is, why do you consider it to be a significant milestone?
>
> It's harder to do, and it is needed for anything that requires
more
> than 15 minutes or so of weightlessness (like the sports).
>

Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttlesworth were orbital tourists before
there were any sub-orbital tourists.

While it may be technically harder to achieve orbit than to graze
through sub-orbital space, we're already doing it.

Pricing, market size and available launch resources are the big
gorillas in this question.

There is a market need for orbital launch capability but no existing
sizable market for suborbital, YET.

So, as a SIGNIFICANT MILESTONE, I can see suborbital commerce being
a substantial step forward because it would develop new technologies
and markets, but I don't see why having tourists do an orbit or two
around the earth is on par with that achievement. They can do that
now if they want to buy themselves a Soyuz launch.

As SIGNIFCANT MILESTONES, I think that the other points raised push
the boundaries.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, rmenich@m... wrote:
> victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> "
> You're correct about the variety of NEO material, and their delta-
v
> advantage, but the Hohmann orbit launch windows needed to realize
> those advantageous delta-v orbits will be few and far between.
> "
>
> True enough. However, there's a nuance to which I'd like to draw
> attention. It is not possible to get down to the surface of the
Moon
> with a xenon arc thruster, but it is possible to reach some NEOs
with such
> equipment. Electrical propulsion systems are more efficient than
> chemical propulsion systems, and they may be safer too. One
might be
> willling to endure a higher delta-V requirement to reach a NEO
than to
> reach the surface of Luna because to reach the NEO one can utilize
the
> much more efficient propulsion system.

Is this a misquote? I'm assuming that the NEO has lower delta-v
requirements and that is what makes them more attractive from the
delta-v point of view.

You raise a very good point about propulsion efficiency that I've
not yet seen addressed in the debate.

I would say that this point adds to the desirability of the NEO
mission.

Chemical propulsion systems seem
> to explode with alarming frequency (e.g., recent problem with
CONTOUR
> probe).
>
> It is not possible to utilize Hohmann transfer orbits with low-
thrust
> electrical propulsion systems, because Hohmann transfer requires
large
> impulse thrusts that are not achievable by electrical propulsion.
Rather,
> electrical propulsion systems utilize continuous-thrusting
trajectories.

Hohmann orbits are designed to transit two points in the most delta-
v efficient manner. Electrical propulsion systems will have the
advantage of not having to wait for rare launch windows but will
have to expend more reaction mass for their transit than they would
if they had been able to use the Hohmann launch windows.

A related issue is scaling. Thus far chemcial propulsion has been
used to move tons of payload about, but the electrical propulsion
systems have only been used for smaller payloads.

Will we simply take hundreds of Hall thrusters and bundle them
together and ship NEO raw material, or the refined products, back
and forth? Where will the reaction mass come from? Mined on the NEO
or launched from Earth? How many "ships in transit" will we need to
have in order to adjust for the long transit times?

> Of course, as many have pointed out before, getting to a NEO takes
a lot
> more time than getting to Luna, and that's certainly a huge
disadvantage
> to NEO development vis a vis Luna development.
>
> Ron

Quite right. Notwithstanding your excellent points, and their
technical advantages, I think that the economic value of the
proximity issue of the Moon thus far trumps the advantages of the
NEOs for the mining of materials available on both the Moon and NEOs.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 03:43 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> > With respect to delta-v disadvantage of the moon, with enough
volume
> > of material shipped, the implementation of mass driver technology
> > will arguably lower the costs of launch and erode the delta-v
> > disadvantage of the NEOs. This development further enhances the
Moon
> > as a "Just In Time" supplier of material that an NEO won't be
able
> > to match.
> >
> I am certainly no opponent of lunar mining.

I never inferred that your were. I'm just tryring to understand your
vision and short of you writing it out in detail, I'm relying on the
brief outline you wrote and your past writings.

So, my question becomes, how much material is returned from the NEO,
what is done with it in orbit, can the orbital infrastructure be
effective on a batch process rather than a continuous feed process,
and can the orbital infrastructure even be put in place in small
doses and with some components of an industrial process being
completely absent until future upgrades? Phew.

Let's say that you send up enough refining capacity to actually make
steel or aluminum. Further, you manage to return 1 ton, or even ten
tons of raw material to LEO. Can you achieve anything substantial
with a ton of refined steel and no fabrication facilities that'll
not be cheaper than just launching the finished product from Earth?

I'm having trouble seeing how the pieces come together in small
ways.

However, the mass drivers
> envisioned by O'Neill were very large. Multiple towers spread out
over
> kilometers.

First off. Is there a need for refined metal in orbit? If there is
then what will the market bear?

By way of analogy, there is need for copper in electrical wire. But
I'm uncomfortable spending a lot of capital on the whole mining and
refining process, so it's easier to just hunt for copper bearing
rocks and melt them individually to get the ore that I need.

Well, the sheer size of the mass-driver concept shouldn't disqualify
it if there is a market for the material it can launch. It may do
this more cost effectively than small NEO missions.

Further, a steady stream of material launched from the Moon may be
able to more efficiently feed a orbital industrial facility than a
sporadic and miniscule material stream from an NEO.

Rather than comparing small material streams from a NEO to the mass
driver streams, let's compare the mass of material that must be
launched from Earth to support an orbital industrial facility.

For the NEO scenario, one couldn't do with a single NEO retriever.
The scale is too large, and the material that is returned and
stockpiled would have to last years between return missions, thus it
is likely that multiple retrievers would be in service to reduce the
transport and stockpile issues. What is the mass of those NEO
retrivers.

Compare to the mass of the Earth essential components need to
complete a lunar mass driver. You wouldn't need to launch the
structural support needed for the mass driver. In Situ Resources
could be used to make lunacrete, etc.

Perhaps it is cheaper to send a small steel mill to the moon that
outputs the tower components and rails of the mass driver than to
launch those components from Earth.

The trick, IMHO, isn't to compare the economics of the NEO and the
Lunar missions in isolation, but to also factor in Earth-launched
provisions.

Thus, while the small amount of refined steel possible from a NEO
would cost less in the aggregate than a more capital intensive mass
driver, I'd venture the opinion that that same mass of steel could
be launched from Earth for substantially less than the cost of the
NEO mission.

So, volume of material needed in orbit will become a factor, and the
take-off point will be where the necessary capital costs of
developing orbital infrastructure can be amortized by the volume of
business and still compete effectively against Earth-launched
providers. I think that the smaller scale of NEO mining and its
uniform scaling costs in delevering more material to orbital
refineries will work against that model.

Although you get a lot of material once it's up and
> running, I'd be more comfortable with a development scheme that
could
> start returning useful material with a small investment and
> incrementally build with parallelism.

I just don't see how this is done. Can you provide more details on
the components needed and their utilization rates?

Retrieving small asteroids, or
> little bits of large ones, fits this better. Actually, the first
> asteroidal return mission just blasted off, and there are plans
for
> robotic lunar materials return.

Yes, and the Japanese are planning on returning with about a gram of
NEO material. Sounds like the "Aster-Ants" proposal :) Look at the
cost of the mission for the return of 1 gram. Not too promising.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:

> >> 3. Orbital sports facility paid for by TV advertising
> >
> > Can you flesh this out more? What kind of sports? Team or
> > individual?
>
> The shuttle can hold about 10, with two needed to fly it.
Assuming it
> flies again, we could have up to 4v4 team sports as long as the
shuttle
> pilot and commander can handle the video. As to what sport --
that's
> fun to speculate about. Soccer and racketball seem to need the
fewest
> modifications to the rules to work in 0g.
> >
> > Will the players live in orbit or will we shuttle them there for
the
> > game and then being them back?
>
> To draw big crowds you need big names, so shuttle existing sports
stars
> up.
> >
> > What will the advertising pay for?
>
> The olympics pulls in billions of advertising revenue. It would
be
> nice to get some figures for the revenue generated by major
sporting
> events (super bowel, world cup, olympics) but I don't have the
details.

Check this out.

ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox Say Broadcasting Pro Sports Is a Loser

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid000103&sid=aDrxF_aMol_8&refer=us

I'm not really sure what your sports proposal is advocating. My
first read of it is the novelty factor, rather than a proposal that
embraces fans to cheer on their local teams, to follow the careers
of players, and in the case of the Olympics, to cheer on your
national atheletes even though you may not follow their particular
sports.

Are you advocating the creation of a large league so as to surpass
the novelty factor?

I think that the novelty factor will wear thin after a very short
time (not for the players though). Look how enthralled the public is
with current zero-g activities? Not much by my reckoning.

If you're looking for novelty that will sell, film naked zero-g
gymnastics and wrestling, film zero-g sex and put it on pay-per-view
( He blasted her out of this world :) film "College Girls in Orbit
Gone Wild"

On a related front, why not outdo the promoters of the "Mile High
Club"

http://www.flamingoair.net/fancy.html

with something that you just can't get on Earth.

TangoMan

No, that's not a misquote. The energy required to achieve a Hohmann
transfer trajectory from Earth to a NEO is not a useful delta-V measure
when considering the trajectory that a spacecraft using electrical
propulsion would use. The delta-V associated with the latter
continuous-thrusting trajectory would likely be much higher than the
Hohmann transfer delta-V (and perhaps higher than that of reaching the
surface of Luna). But that's o'k in many instances, because the
efficiency of the ion engine is so much greater than the efficiency of
chemical propulsion.

It just depends....

By the way, I've used the term 'electrical propulsion', but the same
comments would apply to any low-thrust engine. For example,
solar-powered 'steam engines' that expel small amounts of water vapor at
high velocities would also not follow Hohmann transfer trajectories. And
the mass driver transfer envisioned by some in which part of a NEO's mass
would be consumed by spewing it behind the NEO for propulsion --- this
also would not be a candidate for Hohmann transfer, but rather for a
continuous thrusting trajectory with a greater delta-V requirement than
Hohmann transfer.

Ron
*******

"victoriatangoman"
05/12/03 07:18 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Space News Letter to Editor

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, rmenich@m... wrote:
> victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> "
> You're correct about the variety of NEO material, and their delta-
v
> advantage, but the Hohmann orbit launch windows needed to realize
> those advantageous delta-v orbits will be few and far between.
> "
>
> True enough. However, there's a nuance to which I'd like to draw
> attention. It is not possible to get down to the surface of the
Moon
> with a xenon arc thruster, but it is possible to reach some NEOs
with such
> equipment. Electrical propulsion systems are more efficient than
> chemical propulsion systems, and they may be safer too. One
might be
> willling to endure a higher delta-V requirement to reach a NEO
than to
> reach the surface of Luna because to reach the NEO one can utilize
the
> much more efficient propulsion system.

Is this a misquote? I'm assuming that the NEO has lower delta-v
requirements and that is what makes them more attractive from the
delta-v point of view.

You raise a very good point about propulsion efficiency that I've
not yet seen addressed in the debate.

I would say that this point adds to the desirability of the NEO
mission.

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 04:04 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttlesworth were orbital tourists before
> there were any sub-orbital tourists.
>

At $20 million a pop the market is pretty limited. Suborbital at
$100,000 a trip might be a pretty big market with hundreds, or even
thousands, of launches.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- In spacesettlers, "victoriatangoman" wrote:

> Check this out.
>
> ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox Say Broadcasting Pro Sports Is a Loser

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid000103&sid=aDrxF_aMol_8&refer=us

I would have to read this whole thing to know for sure, but it is
hard to believe that pro sports is "a loser." Maybe ESOPN and such
are cutting into the Big Three's (Big Four, with Fox?) take.

> I'm not really sure what your sports proposal is advocating. My
> first read of it is the novelty factor, rather than a proposal that
> embraces fans to cheer on their local teams, to follow the careers
> of players, and in the case of the Olympics, to cheer on your
> national atheletes even though you may not follow their particular
> sports.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else (I could try, but that would be
silly), but what I propose is *exactly* the embracing of fans to
cheer on their favorite teams, to follow the careers of players, etc.

> Are you advocating the creation of a large league so as to surpass
> the novelty factor?

Eventually, yes. I still think that having each orbital resort
sponsor teams is a reasonable earlier stage, though.

> I think that the novelty factor will wear thin after a very short

Maybe, maybe not. Look at the popularity of "extreme sports."

> time (not for the players though). Look how enthralled the public
> is with current zero-g activities? Not much by my reckoning.

And what, exactly, ARE "current zero-g activities"? Not much by my
reckoning (or yours, I'd bet).

> If you're looking for novelty that will sell, film naked zero-g
> gymnastics and wrestling, film zero-g sex and put it on pay-per-
> view ( He blasted her out of this world :) film "College Girls in
> Orbit Gone Wild"

yguid=59692586

> On a related front, why not outdo the promoters of the "Mile High
> Club"
>
> http://www.flamingoair.net/fancy.html
>
> with something that you just can't get on Earth.
>
> TangoMan

That should be doable, with either a short orbital flight OR one of
the longer sub-orbitals.

Xenophile (GO, COMETS!!)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:

> I would have to read this whole thing to know for sure, but it is
> hard to believe that pro sports is "a loser." Maybe ESOPN and
such
> are cutting into the Big Three's (Big Four, with Fox?) take.

There are two intersecting trend lines moving in opposite directions
that pose trouble;

"The economics are less favorable now. Advertising revenue at the
largest networks fell 10 percent from 2000 to 2001 while regular-
season ratings for the four major sports dropped an average of about
18 percent from 1997 to 2001. The NBA led the decline, plummeting 38
percent, according to research compiled by Fox Sports."

"Cable networks like ESPN are raising rates to make up for higher
rights fees, which result from skyrocketing player salaries.
Basketball players, for instance, make an average of $2.6 million
this season, a fourfold increase from 1990. Because owners are
paying more, they want more from the TV networks, which pass along
costs to cable operators, which raise the monthly cable bill."

So, the upshot is that with the mean demographic age of the US
increasing (that's what I think is the cause) the popularity of
televised sports is waning, and it's decline is greater than the
fall in ad revenue. The result is that advertisers are paying more
per viewer in a demographic that is contracting rather than
expanding.

The cable operators are selectively taking up the TV rights for some
events and passing on the costs to subscribers, but the cost is
shared with the other cable stations in the bundle that cable
operators offer. Thus, there is a lot of squaking from the other
stations that see their subscribers complaining if their bill goes
up and they're not huge sports fans.

As to how this all applies to space sports, well, I think if you had
some event you could probably promote it on a pay per view basis but
you couldn't instantly develop a league and join the like of NFL,
NBA, MLB, etc.

Further, as a one off event, I have serious doubts that you could
raise $Billion plus that it would take to launch teams, venue,
lights, sound, camera, operators, telelink, and associated
equipment. With boxing, there is a track record so box-office can be
predicted, but not so with space sports. Who is going to fund the
project and market it - all involving up-front costs that are sunk
before the launch decision is a go or no-go.

So, I don't think tht space sports as stand alone ventures are going
to be money makers. The ppv prices will be too high to fund the
project, and TV rights like for the leagues is not a starter without
a proven model and built in audience.

That said, space sports will probably develop in samll steps from
groups that are already in orbit, and these efforts will be
makeshift with no capital expenditures. Then some group will film it
and it'll attract fans on Earth, and grow bit by bit.

> > Are you advocating the creation of a large league so as to
surpass
> > the novelty factor?
>
> Eventually, yes. I still think that having each orbital resort
> sponsor teams is a reasonable earlier stage, though.
>
> > I think that the novelty factor will wear thin after a very short
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Look at the popularity of "extreme sports."

I'm an avid whitewater kayaker and partake in other extreme sports,
but watching them on TV is a very staid activity. So, while the
players of orbital sports might rave about them, that doesn't mean
that the Earth-bound viewer will relate and become a fan.

Think about your youth and sports. You may have emulated your
favorite player, especially when you were on the field. You may
have had big dreams, and playing that sport may have filled your
summer days. It's going to be difficult for a kid to try
to "practice his moves" in Earth's gravity and he'll be very
frustrated that his zero-g sports dreams are out of reach until he
himself can go into orbit as an adult.

>
> > time (not for the players though). Look how enthralled the public
> > is with current zero-g activities? Not much by my reckoning.
>
> And what, exactly, ARE "current zero-g activities"? Not much by
my
> reckoning (or yours, I'd bet).

Having a shower, eating food, spacewalks, floating down ISS
corridors.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 04:04 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> > Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttlesworth were orbital tourists before
> > there were any sub-orbital tourists.
> >
> At $20 million a pop the market is pretty limited. Suborbital at
> $100,000 a trip might be a pretty big market with hundreds, or
even
> thousands, of launches.
>

And that's why I said that as a MILESTONE the development of
suboribtal tourism will be a significant step forward, but orbital
tourism won't be as significant.

TangoMan