In what category would an Inverse Gravity Vehicule fall under?

For IGV information, check out the Searl Effect Generator

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: sraj [mailto:sraj@....net.in]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:27 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

Hi Ste-Marie,

On Earth, in a car, we move by traction (friction). In space we can move
in one of two ways, by external force, or by reaction force. External
force so far as we know in the Solar System, can only be applied by
Solar Wind, which is very feeble - and for which you would need large
solar sails. Reaction force is the standard way to move in space, where
you throw away a part of the mass of the system, and by Newtonian
mechanics (The third law, to every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction), you move in the opposite direction. That is why a mighty
rocket delivers only a fraction of its original mass as payload - the
rocket sacrifices itself to impart high velocity to the payload..

It is worth reviewing what we Indians call 'Fundas' once in a while.
Half the mistakes scientists make is not in high-flown equations, but in
simple things, so your questions are very pertinent.

Regards
Selvaraj

In what category would an Inverse Gravity Vehicule fall under?

For IGV information, check out the Searl Effect Generator

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.

http://www.searleffect.com/free/overview.html
Prof. John Searl is the ONLY man in history to have built and flown an antigravity device called a LEVITY DISC , now called Inverse-G-Vehicle.

This was recorded by the BBC News and by the Newspapers. The BBC ran a weekly piece on Prof. Searls work and progress for almost a year. These Television broadcasts showed the Levity Disc in flight and gave updates on the work being done to build a large craft. There were articles and pictures in the Sunday Mirror on November 28'th 1971, Derby shire District and The Hants and Berks Gazette in 1969. There were pictures taken by John Hocknell Press Photographer which accompanied press write up by Phil Sanders on July 4'th 1969. There were many pictures and write-ups done on Prof. Searl during this time......

.....Prof. Searl has offered this wonderful boon to all mankind since 1946. The story of his hardships and persecution is a long one. Long after most men would have given in to the pressures of big business and corrupt government officials he has come back one last time to offer this inspired work to the world.

The Searl Effect Generator (SEG) is a magnetic prime mover that operates with no friction. The SEG generates electricity that is capable of supplying power to the home or industry. When used in an Inverse-G-Vehicle, the SEG generates a gravitational field around the craft which can be directed for flight.......

Frankly I am not able to comment. I remember the Searl effect in terms of levitation of an aluminum disc with slots, when a magnet is rotated under it (due to induced magnetism caused by circulation of leakage currents). Is that kind of effect good enough to levitate a space vehicle, using the Earth's magnetic field? Theoretically it may be possible if the surface area of the rotating disc is very large and it's mass is very small. Is that good enough to make a practical launch vehicle in Earth's limited magnetic field? I doubt it.

Selvaraj

From: Karell Ste-Marie
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

In what category would an Inverse Gravity Vehicule fall under?

For IGV information, check out the Searl Effect Generator

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:27 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

Hi Ste-Marie,

On Earth, in a car, we move by traction (friction). In space we can move
in one of two ways, by external force, or by reaction force. External
force so far as we know in the Solar System, can only be applied by
Solar Wind, which is very feeble - and for which you would need large
solar sails. Reaction force is the standard way to move in space, where
you throw away a part of the mass of the system, and by Newtonian
mechanics (The third law, to every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction), you move in the opposite direction. That is why a mighty
rocket delivers only a fraction of its original mass as payload - the
rocket sacrifices itself to impart high velocity to the payload..

It is worth reviewing what we Indians call 'Fundas' once in a while.
Half the mistakes scientists make is not in high-flown equations, but in
simple things, so your questions are very pertinent.

Regards
Selvaraj

Ouch, Sraj,

Some people actually building the thing would completely disagree with
you,

The disc can travel at the speed of a rocket, with a disc of a
sufficient size it can lift just about anything and it's high-G
capabilities make it very maneuvrable

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.

From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:10 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

In what category would an Inverse Gravity Vehicule fall under?

For IGV information, check out the Searl Effect Generator

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.

http://www.searleffect.com/free/overview.html
Prof. John Searl is the ONLY man in history to have built and flown an
antigravity device called a LEVITY DISC , now called Inverse-G-Vehicle.

This was recorded by the BBC News and by the Newspapers. The BBC ran a
weekly piece on Prof. Searls work and progress for almost a year. These
Television broadcasts showed the Levity Disc in flight and gave updates
on the work being done to build a large craft. There were articles and
pictures in the Sunday Mirror on November 28'th 1971, Derby shire
District and The Hants and Berks Gazette in 1969. There were pictures
taken by John Hocknell Press Photographer which accompanied press write
up by Phil Sanders on July 4'th 1969. There were many pictures and
write-ups done on Prof. Searl during this time......

.....Prof. Searl has offered this wonderful boon to all mankind since
1946. The story of his hardships and persecution is a long one. Long
after most men would have given in to the pressures of big business and
corrupt government officials he has come back one last time to offer
this inspired work to the world.

The Searl Effect Generator (SEG) is a magnetic prime mover that operates
with no friction. The SEG generates electricity that is capable of
supplying power to the home or industry. When used in an
Inverse-G-Vehicle, the SEG generates a gravitational field around the
craft which can be directed for flight.......

Frankly I am not able to comment. I remember the Searl effect in terms
of levitation of an aluminum disc with slots, when a magnet is rotated
under it (due to induced magnetism caused by circulation of leakage
currents). Is that kind of effect good enough to levitate a space
vehicle, using the Earth's magnetic field? Theoretically it may be
possible if the surface area of the rotating disc is very large and it's
mass is very small. Is that good enough to make a practical launch
vehicle in Earth's limited magnetic field? I doubt it.

Selvaraj

From: Karell Ste-Marie
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

In what category would an Inverse Gravity Vehicule fall under?

For IGV information, check out the Searl Effect Generator

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:27 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

Hi Ste-Marie,

On Earth, in a car, we move by traction (friction). In space we can
move
in one of two ways, by external force, or by reaction force. External
force so far as we know in the Solar System, can only be applied by
Solar Wind, which is very feeble - and for which you would need large
solar sails. Reaction force is the standard way to move in space,
where
you throw away a part of the mass of the system, and by Newtonian
mechanics (The third law, to every action there is an equal and
opposite
reaction), you move in the opposite direction. That is why a mighty
rocket delivers only a fraction of its original mass as payload - the
rocket sacrifices itself to impart high velocity to the payload..

It is worth reviewing what we Indians call 'Fundas' once in a while.
Half the mistakes scientists make is not in high-flown equations, but
in
simple things, so your questions are very pertinent.

Regards
Selvaraj

Service.

http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm

Very interesting site, with lot of interesting images! One is almost convinced that life may not be too bad in one of the 'Habs'. Also read through 'If not for the fall' and 'Bridge to Space'. Since we were just on the subject of Sci-fi, these are truely commendable. Hope to read the other stories later.

My comments

1) One can only hope that the doom predicted in 'If not for the fall' does not come true.

This info, generated by the Pentagon, was leaked in the 22 Feb 2004 issue of 'The Observer' (British Newspaper)....
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change will destroy us
O Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war.
O Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years.
O Threat to world is greater than terrorism.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE PENTAGON

O Future wars will be fought over the issue of *survival* rather than religion, ideology or national honour.
O By 2007 *violent storms" smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.
O Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.
O Deaths from war and famine run into millions until the planet's population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope. ................

2) Is there a smaller design of the Space Hab which can accommodate say 20 persons? Is there any plan to put up such a 'Hab' in the near future?

3) The Sky Bridge in 'Bridge to Space' is very interesting. Two maiden launch fail, and yet the Astronauts survive - perhaps to emphasise the survivability aspect, as compared with the Space Shuttle!?

Very Nice
Selvaraj.

From: Combs, Mike
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]

> Any hope that a mass driver can be used as a propulsion
> system in a Rocket?

Absolutely. Back in the days of the High Frontier studies, it had been
suggested that mass-driver tugs could push payloads of cargo from LEO to
lunar orbit. Also that mass-driver tugs might go out to asteroids and
bring them (or a portion thereof) back to HEO.

Here are some pictures of mass-driver tugs:
http://members.aol.com/sandycombs/massdriv.jpg
http://members.aol.com/sandycombs/asteroid.jpg from
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm

and

http://www.ssi.org/assets/images/Ch10p204.gif
http://www.ssi.org/assets/images/Ch10p218.gif
http://www.ssi.org/assets/images/Ch11p226.gif from
http://www.ssi.org/Don_Davis_Artshow.html

> Is it more efficint than a chemical
> propulsion system?

Seems like I remember O'Neill commenting that a mass-driver engine could
have twice the specific impulse of the Space Shuttle's chemical main
engines. But as Rick commented, the big advantage is that they could
use just about anything lying around for reaction mass: oxygen from an
ore-refining operation, regolith from an asteroid, etc..

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:

> My comments
>
> 1) One can only hope that the doom predicted in 'If not for the
fall' does not come true.
>
> This info, generated by the Pentagon, was leaked in the 22 Feb
2004 issue of 'The Observer' (British Newspaper)....
> Now the Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change will destroy us
> O Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war.
> O Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years.
> O Threat to world is greater than terrorism.
>
> KEY FINDINGS OF THE PENTAGON
>
> O Future wars will be fought over the issue of *survival* rather
than religion, ideology or national honour.
> O By 2007 *violent storms" smash coastal barriers rendering large
parts of the Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are
abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento
river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting
water from north to south.
> O Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change
with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain
becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble
Siberia.
> O Deaths from war and famine run into millions until the planet's
population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can
cope. ................

You do understand that that this Pentagon report is a *contingency*
plan and not a forecast. The Pentagon planners get paid to develop
all sorts of scenarios (there are even plans for how to invade
Canada!) and then plan military responses based on derived geo-
political realities.

All the Greenies went nuts when this came out and thought that Bush
was suppressing the truth.

TangoMan

From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]

> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm
>
> Very interesting site, with lot of interesting images!

Thanks. Just did a re-organization of my website to break things down
to smaller, more digestible chunks.

> 1) One can only hope that the doom predicted in 'If not
> for the fall' does not come true.

In truth, my thinking on this subject has changed somewhat since the
time I wrote this story. So many of the dire predictions of the
environmentalists failed to come true. Nowadays, I worry more about a
steady stultification and regimentation of life on Earth than about
anybody running out of food or metal. And I see space settlement as a
way out of that stultification.

> This info, generated by the Pentagon, was leaked in the
> 22 Feb 2004 issue of 'The Observer' (British Newspaper)....
> Now the Pentagon tells Bush: Climate Change will destroy us

One thing that hasn't gotten sufficient attention is that the scenarios
they discussed were considered absolute worst-case scenarios, not what
was considered most likely to happen. And the press has hyped it up a
bit.

> 2) Is there a smaller design of the Space Hab which can
> accommodate say 20 persons? Is there any plan to put up
> such a 'Hab' in the near future?

A CELSS for 20 people might be possible (if somewhat artificial), but
gravity is a bit more iffy. If people are more adaptable to rotation
than we currently think, or if smaller amounts of gravity turn out to be
enough, then smaller habitat radii might be possible. But if the
pessimists are right, radii of around a mile might be the minimum.

> 3) The Sky Bridge in 'Bridge to Space' is very interesting.
> Two maiden launch fail, and yet the Astronauts survive -
> perhaps to emphasise the survivability aspect, as compared
> with the Space Shuttle!?

Eh, more because I don't believe in creating characters crafted to be
likeable, and then killing them.

> Very Nice

Thanks.

Regards,

Mike Combs

In a message dated 3/23/04 2:35:42 PM, tango_dancer@... writes:

<< You do understand that that this Pentagon report is a *contingency*

plan and not a forecast. The Pentagon planners get paid to develop

all sorts of scenarios (there are even plans for how to invade

Canada!) and then plan military responses based on derived geo-

political realities.

All the Greenies went nuts when this came out and thought that Bush

was suppressing the truth.

TangoMan >>

He's right. This is a miltary job. The miltary are paid to assume the worst
and to plans for that possibility. This way they hope to avoid another Pearl
Harbor and Sept. 11, but as recent news shows it really requires political
will and good sense to really do the right thing, something that a army under
civilan control cannot do on their own without a coup. I'm sure somebody have a
study on how to fight the invading Martians!

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)

"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!

In a message dated 3/23/04 3:07:41 PM, mikecombs@... writes:

1) One can only hope that the doom predicted in 'If not
> for the fall' does not come true.

In truth, my thinking on this subject has changed somewhat since the
time I wrote this story. So many of the dire predictions of the
environmentalists failed to come true. Nowadays, I worry more about a
steady stultification and regimentation of life on Earth than about
anybody running out of food or metal. And I see space settlement as a
way out of that stultification. >>

Doubtful. There's a thing called "megapolitics" (outlied in The Sovereign
Individual) which show that life and its economy are affected to a large degree
by how raw power is effected. And raw power depends to a surprising degree by
technology and its costs. If technology allows raw power to be projected
cheaply, then you would get regimentation and empire. But if technology lowers
the cost of defense and increase the cost or projection of aggression, then
breakup of nation-states become much more likely. That's because trying to
project power under ruinious debt will destroy that empire very quickly by
destroying its economy. Think Spain, Dutch, France, England from 1812 to 1914.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)

"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!

> From: Ravenart@... [mailto:Ravenart@...]
> He's right. This is a miltary job. The miltary are paid to
> assume the worst
> and to plans for that possibility. This way they hope to
> avoid another Pearl
> Harbor and Sept. 11, but as recent news shows it really
> requires political
> will and good sense to really do the right thing, something
> that a army under
> civilan control cannot do on their own without a coup.

In any case this is all old news, and was forecast in New Scientist and Scientific American years ago. Maybe they just downloaded it off the internet and slapped a pentagon logo on the front. Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened.

ANTIcarrot.

In a message dated 3/23/04 10:29:34 PM, dante.feditech@... writes:

<< In any case this is all old news, and was forecast in New Scientist and
Scientific American years ago. Maybe they just downloaded it off the internet
and slapped a pentagon logo on the front. Wouldn't be the first time something
like that has happened.

ANTIcarrot. >>

That's true. When I was a teen in Virginia Beach in 1986, there was a news
on tv about a explosing toliet in which a wife kill a cockroach and dump it
into the toliet and then to make sure it's REALLY dead, spray the entire can at
it. Later, when the husband sat on it, he lit a ciggrate and it explose the
gas. That was actually fake but it was carried on the news because the
reporter want to believe it was true. When it proved to be fake, there were a lot
of red faces around. 10 years later, yet another newscaster reported that as
"news"! Some thng just never died, they become zombie news.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)

"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!

I wasn't so much thinking in terms of empires or consolidation of
nation-states as just regimentation of lifestyle. I can see present
nations fragmenting into lots of little nations, but still very little
freedom for the individual.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Ravenart@... [mailto:Ravenart@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:06 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

In a message dated 3/23/04 3:07:41 PM, mikecombs@... writes:

1) One can only hope that the doom predicted in 'If not
> for the fall' does not come true.

In truth, my thinking on this subject has changed somewhat since the
time I wrote this story. So many of the dire predictions of the
environmentalists failed to come true. Nowadays, I worry more about a
steady stultification and regimentation of life on Earth than about
anybody running out of food or metal. And I see space settlement as a
way out of that stultification. >>

Doubtful. There's a thing called "megapolitics" (outlied in The
Sovereign
Individual) which show that life and its economy are affected to a large
degree
by how raw power is effected. And raw power depends to a surprising
degree by
technology and its costs. If technology allows raw power to be
projected
cheaply, then you would get regimentation and empire. But if technology
lowers
the cost of defense and increase the cost or projection of aggression,
then
breakup of nation-states become much more likely. That's because trying
to
project power under ruinious debt will destroy that empire very quickly
by
destroying its economy. Think Spain, Dutch, France, England from 1812
to 1914.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ravenart@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/23/04 10:29:34 PM, dante.feditech@n... writes:
>
><< In any case this is all old news, and was forecast in New
Scientist and
> Scientific American years ago. Maybe they just downloaded it off
the internet
> and slapped a pentagon logo on the front. Wouldn't be the first
time something
> like that has happened.
>
> ANTIcarrot. >>
>
> That's true. When I was a teen in Virginia Beach in 1986, there
was a news
> on tv about a explosing toliet in which a wife kill a cockroach
and dump it
> into the toliet and then to make sure it's REALLY dead, spray the
entire can at
> it. Later, when the husband sat on it, he lit a ciggrate and it
explose the
> gas. That was actually fake but it was carried on the news
because the
> reporter want to believe it was true. When it proved to be fake,
there were a lot
> of red faces around. 10 years later, yet another newscaster
reported that as
> "news"! Some thng just never died, they become zombie news.
>

How about the $1 trillion pricetag that keeps appearing for the moon
and mars missions? Same thing, some reporter made up the number by
using NASA's grandest vision for Bush Sr.'s space plan, counting the
moon base twice, then adding $200 billion. Yet this totally
erroneous number keeps appearing as the cost of a manned mission to
mars alone...

Ed

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

> How about the $1 trillion pricetag that keeps appearing for the moon
> and mars missions? Same thing, some reporter made up the number by
> using NASA's grandest vision for Bush Sr.'s space plan, counting the
> moon base twice, then adding $200 billion. Yet this totally
> erroneous number keeps appearing as the cost of a manned mission to
> mars alone...

That's a combination of journalistic exaggeration, public gullibility and political mud-slinging. The writers like huge sums of money, as 'warning the public' about them sells papers. The public knows so little about NASA's actual operations that it actually swallows it. And the Far Right Party and the Other Far Right Party (I forget - which one is in power now?) love it because it's yet another thing they can use to make the current president look a little dim, and their candidate smart.

Against all that what chance does the truth have?

ANTIcarrot.
PS: Near as I can tell, Mars could be done for roughly $5B with something like the shuttle-C.

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

> PS: Near as I can tell, Mars could be done for roughly $5B with
something like the shuttle-C.

For a three-SSME version of shuttle C that's 77000 kg to 400 km
orbit. That's purely cargo, you'd have to find another way to get
your astronauts to orbit. That is not a lot of mass, particularly
when most of that will be fuel and radiation sheilding (of course,
one can double for the other). Not a lot of mass left over for life
support for the trip or for the base to be established on Mars.

Ed

Does someone has a link to the Shuttle-C ?

Or is it just a nice typical shuttle with a sun-roof ?

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:54 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

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

> PS: Near as I can tell, Mars could be done for roughly $5B with
something like the shuttle-C.

For a three-SSME version of shuttle C that's 77000 kg to 400 km
orbit. That's purely cargo, you'd have to find another way to get
your astronauts to orbit. That is not a lot of mass, particularly
when most of that will be fuel and radiation sheilding (of course,
one can double for the other). Not a lot of mass left over for life
support for the trip or for the base to be established on Mars.

Ed

> 2) Is there a smaller design of the Space Hab which can
> accommodate say 20 persons? Is there any plan to put up
> such a 'Hab' in the near future?

A CELSS for 20 people might be possible (if somewhat artificial), but
gravity is a bit more iffy. If people are more adaptable to rotation
than we currently think, or if smaller amounts of gravity turn out to be
enough, then smaller habitat radii might be possible. But if the
pessimists are right, radii of around a mile might be the minimum.

OK, let the radius be a mile! Is that frightening? There is no shortage of space in Space! The Egyptians would have never built the pyramids if they had paused to contemplate its eventual size. The idea should be to add brick by brick till the job gets done (a modular design will allow that).

The space programme is unlikely to get public support unless it is about families living in space. Humans are basically social animals. So the space programme could go like this.

1) Build closed cycle habitats in Earth Orbit to prove that humans could survive anywhere in space by recycling everything. Even if 500 billon $ is spent on a hab, the indirect benefit to earth and its environment could be of the order of five trillion $ - we will learn a lot.

2) Get a foothold on Mars and Moon (With families living there)

3) Build O'Neil type habs.

Selvaraj.

(P.S. Since we were on the subject of trade as an impetus to space exploration it is worth reading Drucker's 'The New Realities', where he suggests that we are shifting from trade in goods and services to a 'Knowledge Society'. If Knowledge is what we exchange in Post Modern society, the settlement on Mars will pay for itself!).

Freedom has to do with Good Health, Fresh Air and Fresh Ideas.

Good Health - Only the very young seem to have good health. (and their health too is being increasingly snuffed away by modern lifestyles)

Fresh Air - No one wants it these days. For all practical purposes we could as well be living on Mars. All over the world the rich are moving from an air-conditioned home to an air conditioned car to an air-conditioned office!!! (True in some places air-conditioning is absolutely necessary.)

Fresh Ideas - The latest Oscars are indicative of where we are headed as a human society - Titanic, Chicago, Lord of the Rings (the flash of flesh kept me in the seat for Titanic and Chicago; had to leave the theatre midway in the case of Lord of the Rings). We don't think these days - we are subtly influenced to think in a particular way. (I have stopped reading the Readers Digest - a great magazine once upon a time - now every article seems to be selling something!).

We don't need Global Warming to do us in.
Selvaraj

From: Combs, Mike
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

I wasn't so much thinking in terms of empires or consolidation of
nation-states as just regimentation of lifestyle. I can see present
nations fragmenting into lots of little nations, but still very little
freedom for the individual.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Ravenart@... [mailto:Ravenart@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:06 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

In a message dated 3/23/04 3:07:41 PM, mikecombs@... writes:

1) One can only hope that the doom predicted in 'If not
> for the fall' does not come true.

In truth, my thinking on this subject has changed somewhat since the
time I wrote this story. So many of the dire predictions of the
environmentalists failed to come true. Nowadays, I worry more about a
steady stultification and regimentation of life on Earth than about
anybody running out of food or metal. And I see space settlement as a
way out of that stultification. >>

Doubtful. There's a thing called "megapolitics" (outlied in The
Sovereign
Individual) which show that life and its economy are affected to a large
degree
by how raw power is effected. And raw power depends to a surprising
degree by
technology and its costs. If technology allows raw power to be
projected
cheaply, then you would get regimentation and empire. But if technology
lowers
the cost of defense and increase the cost or projection of aggression,
then
breakup of nation-states become much more likely. That's because trying
to
project power under ruinious debt will destroy that empire very quickly
by
destroying its economy. Think Spain, Dutch, France, England from 1812
to 1914.

> From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]
> For a three-SSME version of shuttle C that's 77000 kg to 400 km
> orbit. That's purely cargo, you'd have to find another way to get
> your astronauts to orbit. That is not a lot of mass, particularly
> when most of that will be fuel and radiation sheilding (of course,
> one can double for the other). Not a lot of mass left over for life
> support for the trip or for the base to be established on Mars.

This is why I assumed the launch of (wait for it) more than one shuttle C.

The regular-brand shuttle costs $500M each launch. A large part of this bill is the fixed cost of the shuttle launch facilities. One of the bigger problems with the shuttle is that it requires months of maintinance between flights. I made the assumption that Shuttle-C could be launched twice as often (hence cost $250M or less) and could carry 65,000kg of useful payload.

$1,000M - Shuttle C development costs (NASA quote)
$1,000M - Shuttle/C+ET based mars transfer ship
$1,500M - Six shuttle-c flights to refuel ET.
$1,000M - Construction of orbital fuel store & 'ship yards'
$ 500M - Soyuz crew rotations.

You end up with a ship capable of ~8kmps delta-V. More than enough to get to mars and back, and that's without any benifits of aerobreaking. Now I'm sure that's a really stupid way of doing it and is probably full of flaws. But it is an interesting speculation none-the-less, wouldn't you agree?

ANTIcarrot.

From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]

> OK, let the radius be a mile! Is that frightening?

It is to NASA, which feels it will have accomplished something
extraordinarily remarkable when it finishes a structure about the length
of a football field.

> The space programme is unlikely to get public support unless
> it is about families living in space. Humans are basically
> social animals.

Amen to that.

> 2) Get a foothold on Mars and Moon (With families living there)
>
> 3) Build O'Neil type habs.

This is minority thinking, but I almost feel that an Island 1 habitat in
Earth orbit might become possible before the first families are settling
on Mars.

> (P.S. Since we were on the subject of trade as an impetus to
> space exploration it is worth reading Drucker's 'The New
> Realities', where he suggests that we are shifting from trade
> in goods and services to a 'Knowledge Society'. If Knowledge
> is what we exchange in Post Modern society, the settlement on
> Mars will pay for itself!).

I've heard this argument before, and personally, I think it oversells
the information component of our global economy. It's not the case that
the information components are replacing the more material components.
It's just that the global economy has grown much larger, with the
addition of new information components which never existed before, and
continued growth in the material sectors. I can't see an entire
community of several thousand people whose sole export is information.

It's the same error Marshall Savage makes with his GEO habitats. We
don't need jobs which can still be done despite living beyond the Earth.
We need jobs which are BEST DONE beyond the Earth. In my opinion,
O'Neill is just about the only space thinker who successfully outlined
such work.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:

> (P.S. Since we were on the subject of trade as an impetus to space
> exploration it is worth reading Drucker's 'The New Realities',
> where he suggests that we are shifting from trade in goods and
> services to a 'Knowledge Society'. If Knowledge is what we
> exchange in Post Modern society, the settlement on Mars will pay
> for itself!).

It's been a while since I read that Drucker title but I'm fairly
certain that his point, which he makes quite clearly in "The Post-
Capitalist Society" is that knowledge work isn't just managers and
programmers but also manufacturing where the steel mill worker is
using his knowledge of plant and process to work more efficiently.
That worker isn't just applying muscle to add value. The application
of his knowledge far surpasses the value gained from muscle power.

This broad definition of knowledge worker is applied to the US
workforce and isn't so easily transferred to the manufacturing base
of Chinese workers who lack that knowledge. Their advantage is a
lower wage, and the lower wage reflects their lower productivity.
They're mostly applying muscle rather than knowledge. Of course,
this analysis doesn't apply so much to computer peripheral types of
manufacturing but more to textiles and other durable goods.

The point I'm trying to make is that on Mars, when we apply the
knowledge metric, it won't be a whole bunch of programmers and
scientists who are creating value. A large part of knowledge workers
still work in making things, they just use their brains to a larger
extent than their muscles. Mars will be left with a large demand for
goods and an insufficient level of demand to warrant domestic
industry. They will need to import virtually all of their goods and
have nothing to offer Earth in return. Their knowledge economy will
have a hard time finding a comparative advantage compared to Earth.

TangoMan

Unfortunately the knowledge economy arguement in manufacturing doesn't
really hold. Product manufacturing facilities don't design as they go.
The knowledge of how to build an airplane is already decided and
defined before the first rivet is used. Many of the manufacturing
workers require very little knowledge of what, they are producing.
Many manufacturing facilities (example heat treatment plants, stamping
plants, plastic molding, etc) the worker doing the work doesn't even
know what the final product is today.

In another example, previous to Ford purchasing Austin Martin, Austin
Martin workers built every car by hand. After purchase, Ford
introduced Assemply line methods, and the quality of the product went
up. By decreasing the knowledge requirements of the workers, and
introducing workflow that isolated the worker from knowing too much,
they produced better products.

If you look at the history of industrialization, the major leaps in
productivity happened when introducing technology that limited the
knowledge requirements of the workers. This allowed the workers to
specialize further. In many cases, this specialization was to become
automaton that use muscle to do one thing very well, and no
intellectual stimulation.

Now getting back to the Mars problem. There is know way anyone will be
paying the shipping costs for the items to be shipped, so I believe
that a industrial base capable of making very small quantities of
everything. It won't be GM with all it suppliers build 1 million cars
every years with all the specialization that imparts. It will be Mikes
garage and soda shop that does everything from metal refining, casting
and heat treating for every part. In fact it is the condition that
Drucker was talking about. Small scale production of multiple items
where no one can really specialize on anything and specialization is
not a desirable thing.

Bill

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

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

> Unfortunately the knowledge economy arguement in manufacturing
> doesn't really hold.

It holds up fine.

> Product manufacturing facilities don't design as they go.

No one argued that position.

> The knowledge of how to build an airplane is already decided and
> defined before the first rivet is used.

No one said otherwise.

> Many of the manufacturing workers require very little knowledge of
> what, they are producing.

You mean like the steelworkers who control the minimills and each
worker today has the productivity of 100 men from 1900. The
steelworkers from a century ago did backbreaking work shoveling coal
into furnaces. Then they had to learn how to operate heavy equipment
in order to move larger quantities of raw materials. Today, the
front line steel worker may be sitting at a computer console and
have to understand statistical quality control procedures, and the
basic chemistry of steel making so that they can understand what is
going on and make decisions if something goes wrong.

How about the secretary of days of old. She had to know how to use a
typewriter, perform shorthand, and file. Today she has to know how
to use a computer, understand all of the formating processes buried
within the programs, understand how to use spreadsheet, database,
presentation, and a myriad of other programs.

How about the farmer who doesn't have to rely on horses any longer.
Now they have to understand how to operate different pieces of
mechanized equipment and they have to be aware of pharmacology as
they drug and monitor their livestock. They have to be aware of soil
chemistry, fertilizer toxicity, and optimum crop rotation and
balancing in order to manage their land more efficiently.

There are many job functions that have grown more complex because of
the need to master technology. The jobs that really do require
nothing more than muscle are simply not cost-competitive in the
first world.

> Many manufacturing facilities (example heat treatment plants,
> stamping plants, plastic molding, etc) the worker doing the work
> doesn't even know what the final product is today.

They don't have to know what they are making. What they have to know
to do their job efficiently is how to operate the equipment.

> In another example, previous to Ford purchasing Austin Martin,
> Austin Martin workers built every car by hand. After purchase, Ford
> introduced Assemply line methods, and the quality of the product
> went up. By decreasing the knowledge requirements of the workers,
> and introducing workflow that isolated the worker from knowing too
> much, they produced better products.

You're confusing craftsmen, or tradespeople, with manufacturing.
Your anology suffers because the skill and knowledge sets are not
directly comparable. The trade-off is not one of knowledge for less
knowledge, as you assert, but the knowledge used by a craftsman is
replaced by the knowledge used by a technician who controls
machinary.

> In fact it is the condition that
> Drucker was talking about. Small scale production of multiple items
> where no one can really specialize on anything and specialization
> is not a desirable thing.
>
> Bill

Either you've never read Drucker of you're mischaracterizing some
point of his so that I have absolutely no idea what you're actually
referring to. Can you provide a reference to your assertion that
Drucker said that specialization is not a desirable thing.

TangoMan

--- victoriatangoman wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Bill"
> wrote:
> > Many of the manufacturing workers require very
> little knowledge of
> > what, they are producing.
>
> You mean like the steelworkers who control the
> minimills and each
> worker today has the productivity of 100 men from
> 1900.
Interesting you bring up steelworkers right now. I am
currently reading a great book called "Organizational
Communication IMperatives, Lessons of the Space
Program" by Phillip K. Tompkins and he looks at this
very fact. This book was written in the early 90s and
concludes a look at Marshal Space Flight Center
starting at 1967. One of the comparisons he uses in
this book is a look at Nucor.

Nucor was a steel company that existed with only 4
levels of management over thousands of employees. It
also was able to resist the powerful steelworkers
unions. The rason for this is they worked on a
philosophy that everyone was a responsible worker.
They tended to place factories in the midwest and hire
people who were good with machines, people who could
think for themselves and fix things as they broke. As
a result, they did pretty good.

The point here comes down to the douglas mcgregor's
theory x vs theory y argument of motivation theory.
If you believe that workers like to be told what to
do, theory x, then they will only do what they want to
do. However, inpower the worker to think for
themselves, theory y, and you will get more productive
workers.

For a better look at this see:
http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_03_mcgregor.html

- Ryan Z

p.s. Tango, if you haven't read that book already, I
highly recommend it. Its a quick read (less than 200
pages) and gives good insight to one of the greatest
of the space visionaries, Werner Van Braun.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:

> I am currently reading a great book called "Organizational
> Communication IMperatives, Lessons of the Space Program" by
> Phillip K. Tompkins

> p.s. Tango, if you haven't read that book already, I
> highly recommend it. Its a quick read (less than 200
> pages) and gives good insight to one of the greatest
> of the space visionaries, Werner Van Braun.

Ryan, thanks for the heads-up on the book. I don't think I'll buy it
but I will check to see if my local university library has a copy.

As to Nucor, it is a very well known management case study and they
became the model for the standard mini-mill. At root is
decentralized decisionmaking and enpowering the front line workers
with knowledge. This is a facet of the trend that Drucker wrote
about and since him, scores of management theorists. If you want an
extreme example of such decentralization look for articles on W.L.
Gore, the makers of gore-tex. They'd hire you and expect you to
develop your own position in the company rather than settle into a
predefined position.

As an interesting aside, right now the mini-mills are under severe
cost pressure because their feedstock (scrap steel) is highly sought
after with the surge of Chinese demand. The integrated steel mills
that work with ores, coke, etc don't face the scarcity of scrap
steel feedstock. Doesn't really have much of a point other than to
demonstrate that competitive advantge is a relative proposition.
Same thing with the overbuilding of natural gas fired genertion
plants. Each decision is made independently and there is little
incentive to bet on coal or nuclear in the midst of such a building
boom when it would have been prescient to do so and avoid locking
into an escalating fuel price cycle that results from increased
scarcity and demand.

TangoMan

Unfortunately I think you are confusing "highly skilled" with
knowledgable.

Consider the cases you gave:
A steel worker using heavy equipment should in theory be able to take
that skill to other industries which use said equipment. Driving a
truck for a steel mill is the same a driving a truck for a brewery.
For eaxmple. This is what is defined in economics as a 'portable
skill'. No consider the skill of understanding the statistical quality
control procedure. This is not a portable skill. It varies from
company to company and industry to industry. Quality control in steel
manufacturing requires chemical procedures, while quality control in
software development requires understanding of a computer language.

Also I would like to point out (because I work with steel companies
and know much about them) that the shovel had been replaced by
mechanization early in the 19th century. ;-)

>
> > Many of the manufacturing workers require very little knowledge of
> > what, they are producing.
>
> You mean like the steelworkers who control the minimills and each
> worker today has the productivity of 100 men from 1900. The
> steelworkers from a century ago did backbreaking work shoveling coal
> into furnaces. Then they had to learn how to operate heavy equipment
> in order to move larger quantities of raw materials. Today, the
> front line steel worker may be sitting at a computer console and
> have to understand statistical quality control procedures, and the
> basic chemistry of steel making so that they can understand what is
> going on and make decisions if something goes wrong.

Again the secretay skills is a set of portable skills that can be
transfered to other offices. She can't be dropped into a stock
brokerage firm and told to do analysis reports for a particular
industry, although she has all the skills (spreadsheet, database,
etc..) required to do the job. She has the skill set but not the
knowledge to do the job.

>
> How about the secretary of days of old. She had to know how to use a
> typewriter, perform shorthand, and file. Today she has to know how
> to use a computer, understand all of the formating processes buried
> within the programs, understand how to use spreadsheet, database,
> presentation, and a myriad of other programs.
>

Farming is also an interesting situation. It in many way has benefited
the least from specialization. I can specifically speak about this. My
father is a farmer, and many friends of his are as well. These people
know nothing about you are talking about. What they know is what the
vet told them to do with the drug. They go by calendars and procedures
that are created by government scientist relating to soil chemistry,
fertilizer toxicity, etc...

Strangely you or I probably know more about why farmers have to do
specific things and procedures than they do.

> How about the farmer who doesn't have to rely on horses any longer.
> Now they have to understand how to operate different pieces of
> mechanized equipment and they have to be aware of pharmacology as
> they drug and monitor their livestock. They have to be aware of soil
> chemistry, fertilizer toxicity, and optimum crop rotation and
> balancing in order to manage their land more efficiently.
>
> There are many job functions that have grown more complex because of
> the need to master technology. The jobs that really do require
> nothing more than muscle are simply not cost-competitive in the
> first world.

Yes, most procedures today are much more complex, but it is the
mechanical, industrial, chemical engineers that create the procedure
that hides the complexity. Most workers today are highly skilled at
one or a few tasks that may or may not be portable between companies
or industries depending on the task. Many of the people doing the
tasks don't know the principles or the rational of what or why they
are doing it.

>
> > Many manufacturing facilities (example heat treatment plants,
> > stamping plants, plastic molding, etc) the worker doing the work
> > doesn't even know what the final product is today.
>
> They don't have to know what they are making. What they have to know
> to do their job efficiently is how to operate the equipment.

>
> > In another example, previous to Ford purchasing Austin Martin,
> > Austin Martin workers built every car by hand. After purchase, Ford
> > introduced Assemply line methods, and the quality of the product
> > went up. By decreasing the knowledge requirements of the workers,
> > and introducing workflow that isolated the worker from knowing too
> > much, they produced better products.
>
> You're confusing craftsmen, or tradespeople, with manufacturing.
> Your anology suffers because the skill and knowledge sets are not
> directly comparable. The trade-off is not one of knowledge for less
> knowledge, as you assert, but the knowledge used by a craftsman is
> replaced by the knowledge used by a technician who controls
> machinary.

The skill sets are not directly comparable. The knowledge set is. Many
people that work for Ford or GM on the assembly line couldn't build a
car. A garage mechanic may not have the skills to operate all of the
specialized equipment on the line but does have the knowledge to build
a car. The assembly line worker has traded the general knowledge, for
the specific skills required to run the machinery.

Both people are in the automotive industry but the mechanics knowledge
is much broader and is closer to the engineers that designed the cars.
(A few of the mechanics I know do have engineering degrees by the way.)

>
> > In fact it is the condition that
> > Drucker was talking about. Small scale production of multiple items
> > where no one can really specialize on anything and specialization
> > is not a desirable thing.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Either you've never read Drucker of you're mischaracterizing some
> point of his so that I have absolutely no idea what you're actually
> referring to. Can you provide a reference to your assertion that
> Drucker said that specialization is not a desirable thing.
>

I have never read the book. I was simply reiterating what was said
about the book.

Bill

We have to distinguish between skill and knowledge. Especially localised skills against wider awareness and knowledge.

In his book Drucker is probably taking a shot in the dark when he talks of the knowledge economy. I don't think the concept is very precisely defined; we have to ourselves define what it could portend. Drucker in the same book refers to environmental and social issues which we have not been able to solve effectively. I would like to think that Drucker is hinting about more effective integration of knowledge and generation of new knowledge to produce goods and services of higher quality - in human and ecological terms.

When I made the statement in an earlier post that by putting up habitats in Earth Orbit, where we recycle everything, we will 'learn a lot', I was visualising how we could improve our Earth bound civilization by applying the same concepts on earth.

1) Natural systems are very clean and pure, since there is no concept of uncycled waste in Nature. Whereas we humans have built what we call an advanced civilization, where we deliberately pollute land, water and air. (A news item a few days back states that world fisheries could be threatened more by nitrogenous fertilizers flowing into the sea - than by over-fishing - in as many as 150 spots, due to growth of algae and reduction of available oxygen!).

2) It is amazing how we are making use of land surface on Earth? Is it possible to have a Victorian type Cottage for all the six billion people on Earth? And in another ten years we will have nine billion people! Many large houses in India are not even fully occupied, even as many people lack shelter. In a modern family of four, if the husband and wife are working and the children are going to school, the house will be *unoccupied* for 8 hours. Even if you have the most beautiful bedroom in the world, for 8 hours all that you are going to do there is *sleep*! Should we not rethink how houses are made? Perhaps the very concept of housing! In space habitats where space will be at a premium, how will space be managed?

3) What will social structures be like in a space habitat? Large houses (where you waste your time going from room to room), with large compounds, negate our basic social nature.

These are three I could think of, there could be others!

Selvaraj.

From: Bill
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Jumping the Gun.

Unfortunately I think you are confusing "highly skilled" with
knowledgable.

Consider the cases you gave:
A steel worker using heavy equipment should in theory be able to take
that skill to other industries which use said equipment. Driving a
truck for a steel mill is the same a driving a truck for a brewery.
For eaxmple. This is what is defined in economics as a 'portable
skill'. No consider the skill of understanding the statistical quality
control procedure. This is not a portable skill. It varies from
company to company and industry to industry. Quality control in steel
manufacturing requires chemical procedures, while quality control in
software development requires understanding of a computer language.

Also I would like to point out (because I work with steel companies
and know much about them) that the shovel had been replaced by
mechanization early in the 19th century. ;-)

>
> > Many of the manufacturing workers require very little knowledge of
> > what, they are producing.
>
> You mean like the steelworkers who control the minimills and each
> worker today has the productivity of 100 men from 1900. The
> steelworkers from a century ago did backbreaking work shoveling coal
> into furnaces. Then they had to learn how to operate heavy equipment
> in order to move larger quantities of raw materials. Today, the
> front line steel worker may be sitting at a computer console and
> have to understand statistical quality control procedures, and the
> basic chemistry of steel making so that they can understand what is
> going on and make decisions if something goes wrong.

Again the secretay skills is a set of portable skills that can be
transfered to other offices. She can't be dropped into a stock
brokerage firm and told to do analysis reports for a particular
industry, although she has all the skills (spreadsheet, database,
etc..) required to do the job. She has the skill set but not the
knowledge to do the job.

>
> How about the secretary of days of old. She had to know how to use a
> typewriter, perform shorthand, and file. Today she has to know how
> to use a computer, understand all of the formating processes buried
> within the programs, understand how to use spreadsheet, database,
> presentation, and a myriad of other programs.
>

Farming is also an interesting situation. It in many way has benefited
the least from specialization. I can specifically speak about this. My
father is a farmer, and many friends of his are as well. These people
know nothing about you are talking about. What they know is what the
vet told them to do with the drug. They go by calendars and procedures
that are created by government scientist relating to soil chemistry,
fertilizer toxicity, etc...

Strangely you or I probably know more about why farmers have to do
specific things and procedures than they do.

> How about the farmer who doesn't have to rely on horses any longer.
> Now they have to understand how to operate different pieces of
> mechanized equipment and they have to be aware of pharmacology as
> they drug and monitor their livestock. They have to be aware of soil
> chemistry, fertilizer toxicity, and optimum crop rotation and
> balancing in order to manage their land more efficiently.
>
> There are many job functions that have grown more complex because of
> the need to master technology. The jobs that really do require
> nothing more than muscle are simply not cost-competitive in the
> first world.

Yes, most procedures today are much more complex, but it is the
mechanical, industrial, chemical engineers that create the procedure
that hides the complexity. Most workers today are highly skilled at
one or a few tasks that may or may not be portable between companies
or industries depending on the task. Many of the people doing the
tasks don't know the principles or the rational of what or why they
are doing it.

>
> > Many manufacturing facilities (example heat treatment plants,
> > stamping plants, plastic molding, etc) the worker doing the work
> > doesn't even know what the final product is today.
>
> They don't have to know what they are making. What they have to know
> to do their job efficiently is how to operate the equipment.

>
> > In another example, previous to Ford purchasing Austin Martin,
> > Austin Martin workers built every car by hand. After purchase, Ford
> > introduced Assemply line methods, and the quality of the product
> > went up. By decreasing the knowledge requirements of the workers,
> > and introducing workflow that isolated the worker from knowing too
> > much, they produced better products.
>
> You're confusing craftsmen, or tradespeople, with manufacturing.
> Your anology suffers because the skill and knowledge sets are not
> directly comparable. The trade-off is not one of knowledge for less
> knowledge, as you assert, but the knowledge used by a craftsman is
> replaced by the knowledge used by a technician who controls
> machinary.

The skill sets are not directly comparable. The knowledge set is. Many
people that work for Ford or GM on the assembly line couldn't build a
car. A garage mechanic may not have the skills to operate all of the
specialized equipment on the line but does have the knowledge to build
a car. The assembly line worker has traded the general knowledge, for
the specific skills required to run the machinery.

Both people are in the automotive industry but the mechanics knowledge
is much broader and is closer to the engineers that designed the cars.
(A few of the mechanics I know do have engineering degrees by the way.)

>
> > In fact it is the condition that
> > Drucker was talking about. Small scale production of multiple items
> > where no one can really specialize on anything and specialization
> > is not a desirable thing.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Either you've never read Drucker of you're mischaracterizing some
> point of his so that I have absolutely no idea what you're actually
> referring to. Can you provide a reference to your assertion that
> Drucker said that specialization is not a desirable thing.
>

I have never read the book. I was simply reiterating what was said
about the book.

Bill

Combs, Mike wrote:

>From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]
>
>>3) The Sky Bridge in 'Bridge to Space' is very interesting.
>>Two maiden launch fail, and yet the Astronauts survive -
>>perhaps to emphasise the survivability aspect, as compared
>>with the Space Shuttle!?
>>
>>
>
>Eh, more because I don't believe in creating characters crafted to be
>likeable, and then killing them.
>
LOL. Well spoken! :*)

By the way, I enjoyed that story too.

(Still I think that wind pressure is a big problem. If there is enough
air to carry the balloons, the wind can become strong enough to displace
the balloons. Informally spoken. But it's a cool concept. About as cool
as the electromagnetic launch loop.)

Regards,
Axel

Combs, Mike wrote:

>>Is it more efficint than a chemical
>>propulsion system?
>>
>>
>
>Seems like I remember O'Neill commenting that a mass-driver engine could
>have twice the specific impulse of the Space Shuttle's chemical main
>engines.
>
Mike, if I remember right, you voiced some doubt about mass-driver
achieving delta-vs of more than 2 km/s
due to some inherent delay in switching on/off the magnetic coils?
In that case mass drivers would have only half the specific impulse of
chemical rockets.

Even if this limit could be overcome by adding more and more stronger coils,
the ratio between ship mass and fuel mass ejected per time unit will
result in a low thrust engine.

> But as Rick commented, the big advantage is that they could
>use just about anything lying around for reaction mass: oxygen from an
>ore-refining operation, regolith from an asteroid, etc..
>
Agreed.

Regards,
Axel

From: Axel Walthelm [mailto:Axel.Walthelm@...]

> Mike, if I remember right, you voiced some doubt about mass-driver
> achieving delta-vs of more than 2 km/s
> due to some inherent delay in switching on/off the magnetic coils?
> In that case mass drivers would have only half the
> specific impulse of
> chemical rockets.

I was actually only reporting on the pessimism of others. I actually
thought that the pessimism was a bit misguided. Myself, I still have
tremendous optimism about mass-drivers. But like everything else ever
thought up, well have to build one full-scale to know that it will work
full-scale.

The O'Neill calculation would have assumed exhaust velocities comparable
to that of the lunar catapult (though I've heard it said that exhaust
velocity is not the end-all/be-all of performance for this application).

Regards,

Mike Combs