P.S.
By the Way, just how much DOES it cost to get a single sheet of
toilet paper into orbit ?

The answer should be interesting.... -and enlightening....

Bob H.

On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 09:55 AM, Bob Hardman wrote:

> P.S.
> By the Way, just how much DOES it cost to get a single sheet of
> toilet paper into orbit ?
>
> The answer should be interesting.... -and enlightening....
>
> Bob H.

It depends on the launch vehicle. Only manned vehicles make sense
since robots don't need toilet paper. A nice round figure for the
shuttle is $10,000/lb. You can argue for lower or higher figures, but
this is about right. Now the hard part: weigh a sheet of toilet paper
and do the math.

>
> &
> refill kits! FREE s/h on $50 orders to the US & Canada. Fast shipping.
>

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.

Al Globus wrote:

>Now the hard part: weigh a sheet of toilet paper
>and do the math.
>
It's not rocket science. Just weigh a toilet roll and divide by the
number of sheets. Number of sheets is usually printed.

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

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 01:53 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> Al Globus wrote:
>
>> Now the hard part: weigh a sheet of toilet paper
>> and do the math.
>>
>>
> It's not rocket science. Just weigh a toilet roll and divide by the
> number of sheets. Number of sheets is usually printed.

This ignores the weight of the cardboard center, you have to subtract
that out too. Amazing how easy it is to screw up a simple task.
Imagine doing something really hard like sending a vehicle through the
atmosphere, accelerate to 18,000 miles an hour, bring it down just at
the right angle to avoid burning up or skipping out into space, and
surviving the heat of reentry to land safely.

>
>> Al Globus
>> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>>
>>
> --
>
> -Ian
>
> "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
> vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
> Canada.
> more.
>
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, Al Globus wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 09:55 AM, Bob Hardman wrote:

>> P.S.
>> By the Way, just how much DOES it cost to get a single
>> sheet of toilet paper into orbit ?
>>
>> The answer should be interesting.... -and enlightening....
>>
>> Bob H.

Are we talking a dedicated shuttle launch for that one sheet of TP?
That little square of tissue costs a half billion dollars.

> It depends on the launch vehicle. Only manned vehicles make sense
> since robots don't need toilet paper.

So send the people up on a manned vehicle with a little TP, and an
unmanned vehicle stuffed to the gills with packets (not rolls) of TP.

> A nice round figure for the shuttle is $10,000/lb. You can argue
> for lower or higher figures, but this is about right. Now the hard
> part: weigh a sheet of toilet paper and do the math.

One of my rolls of TP weighs about a half pound (best guess). So
even using the shuttle, that's about $5,000. Now, this roll contains
260 sheets. So: 5000.00/260=$19.23(*) per sheet. Now that doesn't
count the cardboad tube, but but again, you aren't sending a single
sheet alone, you are sending up a lot at one time.

Use a better launch vehicle (unmanned, $2,500 per pound), with 600
sheet-per pound, carboard tubeless packets, and the cost becomes:
2500.00/600=$4.17(*) per sheet.

Conclusion: switch to bidets as soon as possible.

Xenophile (thanks for pointing out the bidet, Lucio)

On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Xenophile wrote:

> Use a better launch vehicle (unmanned, $2,500 per pound), with 600
> sheet-per pound, carboard tubeless packets, and the cost becomes:
> 2500.00/600=$4.17(*) per sheet.
>
> Conclusion: switch to bidets as soon as possible.
>

Better have good water recycling. Water weighs about 9 lb. a gallon.

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 Globus wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 01:53 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>>Al Globus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now the hard part: weigh a sheet of toilet paper
>>>and do the math.
>>>
>>>
>>It's not rocket science. Just weigh a toilet roll and divide by the
>>number of sheets. Number of sheets is usually printed.
>>
>>
>
>This ignores the weight of the cardboard center, you have to subtract
>that out too.
>
Well, the cardboard center is presumably part of the launch weight,
together with any other packaging, so I would leave them in.

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

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

>>Conclusion: switch to bidets as soon as possible.
>>
>>
>Better have good water recycling. Water weighs about 9 lb. a gallon.

Well now that's an interesting point that I'm surprised nobody has picked up
on. Water is a fairly simply molecule, one that may be readily available
trapped in asteroid material, and of course one that is in plentiful supply
if you can go all the way to Europa. The paper for toilet paper is made of
plant material and highly processed and milled, something that would be
difficult and expensive for an orbital colony to replicate.

True the first water would have to be lifted from earth, but a plan to put
permanent residents into space should look carefully at the cheapest ways to
supply their needs (which is where this thread started, after all). So
pretty quick somebody should be looking at the fuel costs to retrieve
asteroids, the water yield from processing them, the costs to send a robot
vessel to Jupiter for water, etc.

Brad W.

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

Brad Walsh wrote,

"
Water is ... readily available
trapped in asteroid material, and ... in plentiful supply
if you can go all the way to Europa.
"

and

"
somebody should be looking at ... the costs to send a robot
vessel to Jupiter for water, etc.
"

Jupiter and Europa are way, way, way, way out of bounds as far as energy
expenditure goes with respect to space settlement activities. Everything
we need for the next 200 years resides within 2.5 AU of the Sun. If we
go to Jupiter or Europa, it is only with probes for scientific reasons,
not for space settlement reasons.

Ron
******

"Brad Walsh"
07/10/03 09:22 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Re 669 P.S.

>>Conclusion: switch to bidets as soon as possible.
>>
>>
>Better have good water recycling. Water weighs about 9 lb. a gallon.

Well now that's an interesting point that I'm surprised nobody has picked
up
on. Water is a fairly simply molecule, one that may be readily available
trapped in asteroid material, and of course one that is in plentiful
supply
if you can go all the way to Europa. The paper for toilet paper is made
of
plant material and highly processed and milled, something that would be
difficult and expensive for an orbital colony to replicate.

True the first water would have to be lifted from earth, but a plan to put

permanent residents into space should look carefully at the cheapest ways
to
supply their needs (which is where this thread started, after all). So
pretty quick somebody should be looking at the fuel costs to retrieve
asteroids, the water yield from processing them, the costs to send a robot

vessel to Jupiter for water, etc.

Brad W.

rmenich@... wrote:

>Jupiter and Europa are way, way, way, way out of bounds as far as energy
>expenditure goes with respect to space settlement activities.
>
Actually, no. The delta-v isn't ridiculous; it's pretty high, but if
you're building large space settlements then it's not out of the question.

The main problem is just that it can take years to get there and come
back, so any ROI is a long time coming. You can play lots of tricks with
gravitational slingshots, and that can speed things up considerably, but
the launch windows have to line up just right for that.

> Everything
>we need for the next 200 years resides within 2.5 AU of the Sun. If we
>go to Jupiter or Europa, it is only with probes for scientific reasons,
>not for space settlement reasons.
>
They're possibly pretty good places to live though; better than most
places I suspect. There's plenty of mass floating around in high
potential energy states in close proximity. That's the problem with
space- it's deficient in mass; so it pays to hang around near to mass
concentrations. All those moons are bound to give you a fantastic mix of
materials to choose from and then there's all the games you can play
with gravitational assists to minimise costs to move around.

>Ron
>******
>
--

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Just comparing Hohmann transfer trajectories, I compute that it takes just
over 1 km/sec delta-V to reach NEO 2000 SG344. By contrast, to get to
Jupiter requires almost 14.5 km/sec delta-V along the same type
trajectory. Not that Hohmann transfer is particularly probable as the
means by which one would get to these places, but it is a way to compare
energies.

Of course, like you said, you can alternatively spend years getting
propellant-free boosts by flybys of Venus and Earth before you head on out
to Jupiter.

If a person in a modern space suit were to stand on the surface of Europa
for 10 minutes, then he or she would look a lot like those guys in K-19
after they came out of the reactor...

Ron
******

Ian Woollard
07/10/03 11:14 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Re 669 P.S.

rmenich@... wrote:

>Jupiter and Europa are way, way, way, way out of bounds as far as energy
>expenditure goes with respect to space settlement activities.
>
Actually, no. The delta-v isn't ridiculous; it's pretty high, but if
you're building large space settlements then it's not out of the question.

The main problem is just that it can take years to get there and come
back, so any ROI is a long time coming. You can play lots of tricks with
gravitational slingshots, and that can speed things up considerably, but
the launch windows have to line up just right for that.

> Everything
>we need for the next 200 years resides within 2.5 AU of the Sun. If we
>go to Jupiter or Europa, it is only with probes for scientific reasons,
>not for space settlement reasons.
>
They're possibly pretty good places to live though; better than most
places I suspect. There's plenty of mass floating around in high
potential energy states in close proximity. That's the problem with
space- it's deficient in mass; so it pays to hang around near to mass
concentrations. All those moons are bound to give you a fantastic mix of
materials to choose from and then there's all the games you can play
with gravitational assists to minimise costs to move around.

>Ron
>******
>
--

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

From: rmenich@...
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Re 669 P.S.

Just comparing Hohmann transfer trajectories, I compute that it takes just
over 1 km/sec delta-V to reach NEO 2000 SG344. By contrast, to get to
Jupiter requires almost 14.5 km/sec delta-V along the same type
trajectory. Not that Hohmann transfer is particularly probable as the
means by which one would get to these places, but it is a way to compare
energies.

Of course, like you said, you can alternatively spend years getting
propellant-free boosts by flybys of Venus and Earth before you head on out
to Jupiter.

If a person in a modern space suit were to stand on the surface of Europa
for 10 minutes, then he or she would look a lot like those guys in K-19
after they came out of the reactor...

Ron
******

Ian Woollard
07/10/03 11:14 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Re 669 P.S.

rmenich@... wrote:

>Jupiter and Europa are way, way, way, way out of bounds as far as energy
>expenditure goes with respect to space settlement activities.
>
Actually, no. The delta-v isn't ridiculous; it's pretty high, but if
you're building large space settlements then it's not out of the question.

The main problem is just that it can take years to get there and come
back, so any ROI is a long time coming. You can play lots of tricks with
gravitational slingshots, and that can speed things up considerably, but
the launch windows have to line up just right for that.

> Everything
>we need for the next 200 years resides within 2.5 AU of the Sun. If we
>go to Jupiter or Europa, it is only with probes for scientific reasons,
>not for space settlement reasons.
>
They're possibly pretty good places to live though; better than most
places I suspect. There's plenty of mass floating around in high
potential energy states in close proximity. That's the problem with
space- it's deficient in mass; so it pays to hang around near to mass
concentrations. All those moons are bound to give you a fantastic mix of
materials to choose from and then there's all the games you can play
with gravitational assists to minimise costs to move around.

>Ron
>******
>
--

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Xenophile wrote:

>Use a better launch vehicle (unmanned, $2,500 per pound), with 600
>sheet-per pound, carboard tubeless packets, and the cost becomes:
>2500.00/600=$4.17(*) per sheet.
>
FWIW I weighed a toilet roll, it weighed 165g (I believe it has 240
sheets, dual ply), which lines up mostly with your guess.

I do find the cost per pound to be unreasonably pessimistic however. It
seems quite plausible that rockets can go below $500/lb (~$1000/kg), and
would do so before any space settlement is likely to occur.

That brings the price down to about $0.80 per sheet.

It wouldn't surprise me if careful optimisation of the roll design could
lower the price by half.

Still, if you want an expensive product, a french bottle of wine costs
$700 (!)

On the whole I think it's going to be a lot like switzerland on
steroids, a very expensive place to live, but terribly exclusive.

>Xenophile (thanks for pointing out the bidet, Lucio)
>
--

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Brad Walsh wrote:

>The paper for toilet paper is made of
>plant material and highly processed and milled, something that would be
>difficult and expensive for an orbital colony to replicate.
>
I saw a program on TV the other day called 'Rough Science'. They dump
about 5 scientists on an island and they were supposed to make a map of
the island they were on from first principles (more or less). They had
to make the paper, make the map; the ink, and then they went out and
surveyed the island using equipment they made themselves.

They did successfully make paper in a couple of days- it wasn't the best
paper I've ever seen; but it's not /that /hard to make. If you had the
wood/hemp and the right equipment you could probably make it in a few hours.

You might even be able to make it from bananas. Bananas grow super quick
under the right conditions.

>Brad W.
>
>Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>

--

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Al Globus wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Xenophile wrote:
>
>>Conclusion: switch to bidets as soon as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>Better have good water recycling. Water weighs about 9 lb. a gallon.
>
Recycling water is easy. Recycling sewage is a big harder, but atleast
is a well understood problem. I think I would extract the water and
incinerate the sewage and put the resultant gas through fractional
distillation.

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

-Ian

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the workers to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
vast and endless sea." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery