The Mars Society has it mock Hab on Devon Island. One idea I've recently had
is that SSI might do a simular project in Cyberspace. Imagine a walk through
simulation of a Bernal Sphere. This would be software that you load into your
personal computer giving youa personal first person perspective of what a
Bernal Sphere would look like to a person walking around inside. You would
move through the simulated Bernal Sphere the same way you would move through
the corridors and rooms in the computer game Doom or Quake. This software
could have two modes, walkthrough and action. In the action mode the Bernal
sphere is boarded by maurauders from a hostile nation and the player is a
paramilitary type whose trying to defeat the maurauders using an assortment
of personal weapons just like Doom except that instead of fighting from
corridors, you are fighting inside the bernal sphere. This product could
actually pay for itself if SSI were to parner itself with a software game
company capable of doing this and it would also raise public awareness of
space colonies.
It's somehting we've always wanted to develop, but have no money to invest
in it, we'd need the partner to be willing to develop in return for access
to the information and drawings we have, if you know of such a person,
please let me know. Bettie Greber, SSI
had
> is that SSI might do a simular project in Cyberspace. Imagine a walk
through
> simulation of a Bernal Sphere. This would be software that you load into
your
> personal computer giving youa personal first person perspective of what a
> Bernal Sphere would look like to a person walking around inside. You would
> move through the simulated Bernal Sphere the same way you would move
through
> the corridors and rooms in the computer game Doom or Quake. This software
> could have two modes, walkthrough and action. In the action mode the
Bernal
> sphere is boarded by maurauders from a hostile nation and the player is a
> paramilitary type whose trying to defeat the maurauders using an
assortment
[...]
> In the action mode the Bernal sphere is boarded by
> maurauders from a hostile nation and the player is a
> paramilitary type whose trying to defeat the maurauders
> using an assortment of personal weapons just like Doom
> except that instead of fighting from corridors, you are
> fighting inside the bernal sphere.
Interesting. I'd prefer the game engine without the weapons and
marauders, though.
Perhaps a murderer hunt in a wilderness colony, if there has to be
such action? I suppose you'd need a lot of memory, though - there is
a reason these 3D games from Wolfenstein and onwards take place in
corridors rather than the open ---
In a message dated 11/4/00 2:12:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jonlennart.beck@... writes:
marauders, though.
Perhaps a murderer hunt in a wilderness colony, if there has to be
such action? I suppose you'd need a lot of memory, though - there is
a reason these 3D games from Wolfenstein and onwards take place in
corridors rather than the open ---
>>
I think you would use ray tracing techniques, the next generation of
computers should handle it easily. Ok so once you've wandered through the
bernal sphere once, what would you do after that? It would be interseting to
look at a bernal sphere, but an empty one would be boring after a while. Ever
hear of the game Sim City? A Bernal Sphere is a city after all. Perhaps the
player could the the mayor of the Bernal sphere making decisions about taxes
and captial improvements. There was another game called Civilization Alpha
Centuri where you try to build an interstellar colony. There was a walk
through program of the USS Enterprise.
Tom Kalbfus
In a message dated 11/4/00 6:43:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, ssi@...
writes:
in it, we'd need the partner to be willing to develop in return for access
to the information and drawings we have, if you know of such a person,
please let me know. Bettie Greber, SSI >>
I'm a computer programmer, although I'm not employed in the computer game or
simulation industry, I hope to find work in such a field eventually. As of
now, I'm unemployed. My brother, Brian Kalbfus, is a computer programmer
working for MCI, but he is also involved in an encrytion project at home with
another company, a company that produces computer games. My uncle Charles
Paliocha has his own software company called evolving systems, he does
websites with interactive solutions. A computer game or simulation is an
enormous undertaking. The programmer has to have experience in producing
other such realtime graphical software. I could probably figure out how to
produce a simulation of a Bernal sphere in space using polygons and ray
casting, but the solution might run slow because of less than optimal
graphical techniques. One software company that comes to mind would be SSI,
it produce a D&D game called the pool of radiance. Another company would be
Microsoft, they produced a number of flight simulators, including Space
Simulator for the old DOS operating system. I think what needs to be done
would be to approach a few software company managers and try to sell them on
it.
Tom Kalbfus
> I think you would use ray tracing techniques, the next generation of
> computers should handle it easily. Ok so once you've wandered
> through the bernal sphere once, what would you do after that? It
> would be interseting to look at a bernal sphere, but an empty one
> would be boring after a while. Ever hear of the game Sim City? A
> Bernal Sphere is a city after all. Perhaps the player could the the
> mayor of the Bernal sphere making decisions about taxes and
> captial improvements. There was another game called Civilization
> Alpha Centuri where you try to build an interstellar colony. There
> was a walk through program of the USS Enterprise.
I should think that SimSpaceColony would be a great idea. I'd buy
one. It could be several games too. There could be one limited to
building a Bernal Sphere or Stanford Torus from scratch with a limited
investment, and have it produce powersats and generate revenue before
the investors bailed out or went bankrupt. The game ends successfully
when your habitat completes a copy of itself && there is a profit
larger than the initial investment, corrected for inflation. Like
with Civilization, there could be points given: the happier the
population - the greater income - the shorter time, the more points.
If you have spent so much time that although you have made a profit
the investors would have gotten a greater return by building bowling
alleys, you end up being sacked.
Another version could be to mastermind the building and running of
several of them: beginning with the first outpost to build the first
actual habitat, with some revenue-generating construction of eg. small
powersats or complats on the side, and ending by the time the first
billion live in freefall habitats. Speeding Mars colonists on their
way could be a small extra income: of course the industrial
infrastructure of L5 will be able to build Mars ships and landers much
cheaper than if everything be launched from the Earth --- the same wit
h, say, radio astronomers paying for the construction of several large
radio dishes which would dwarf Arecibo in sensitivity and any
Earth-based VLBA in baselines.
Thank you. In monitoring the other chat I see alot of violence among the
ideas, anything SSI associates with must not include weapons, it is part of
our founding charter. Bettie
> writes:
>
><< It's something we've always wanted to develop, but have no money to
invest
> in it, we'd need the partner to be willing to develop in return for
access
> to the information and drawings we have, if you know of such a person,
> please let me know. Bettie Greber, SSI >>
>
> I'm a computer programmer, although I'm not employed in the computer game
or
> simulation industry, I hope to find work in such a field eventually. As of
> now, I'm unemployed. My brother, Brian Kalbfus, is a computer programmer
> working for MCI, but he is also involved in an encrytion project at home
with
> another company, a company that produces computer games. My uncle Charles
> Paliocha has his own software company called evolving systems, he does
> websites with interactive solutions. A computer game or simulation is an
> enormous undertaking. The programmer has to have experience in producing
> other such realtime graphical software. I could probably figure out how to
> produce a simulation of a Bernal sphere in space using polygons and ray
> casting, but the solution might run slow because of less than optimal
> graphical techniques. One software company that comes to mind would be
SSI,
> it produce a D&D game called the pool of radiance. Another company would
be
> Microsoft, they produced a number of flight simulators, including Space
> Simulator for the old DOS operating system. I think what needs to be done
> would be to approach a few software company managers and try to sell them
on
In a message dated 11/6/00 6:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, ssi@...
writes:
ideas, anything SSI associates with must not include weapons, it is part of
our founding charter. Bettie >>
I don't know what other chat your referring to. My idea was to have a first
person walk through of a bernal sphere. The player would see it the same way
a person walking through the inside of the sphere would see it. Most science
fiction scenarios involve some sort of action adventure and combat is easier
to program than romance for example. You typically have some AI program
control some robots, enemy soldier or other creature and try to destroy the
player. The player has to defend himself usually by destroying whatever is
attacking him or her. Most science fiction has this sort of angle. The other
sort of program is a sym-city type program where the player manages the
resources of the bernal sphere and tries to achieve some goal such as
building anothe bernal sphere. Sim city has a sort of top down perspective
which is somewhat disappointing in that you would see the whole bernal sphere
at once rather than walking through it. Most games have to challenge the
player in some way. Another possiblity would be motorcycle races around the
perimeter of the Bernal sphere.
Tom Kalbfus
I was referring to your conversations with Jon Beck. I understand what the
components for science fiction or action adventure are. I was just saying
that for SSI to be associated with an effort it would need to avoid
violence. I could be action or exploration orienented. Someone may base a
violence-based game on what they see from reading The High Frontier, but we
would have no control over that nor would we promote it. I look at all the
mail but just respond to those that seem like they are looking for what
SSI's poistion is or what they have done on something. I hope I have
cleared up any confusion. Bettie Greber
> writes:
>
><< Thank you. In monitoring the other chat I see alot of violence among
the
> ideas, anything SSI associates with must not include weapons, it is part
of
> our founding charter. Bettie >>
>
> I don't know what other chat your referring to. My idea was to have a
first
> person walk through of a bernal sphere. The player would see it the same
way
> a person walking through the inside of the sphere would see it. Most
science
> fiction scenarios involve some sort of action adventure and combat is
easier
> to program than romance for example. You typically have some AI program
> control some robots, enemy soldier or other creature and try to destroy
the
> player. The player has to defend himself usually by destroying whatever is
> attacking him or her. Most science fiction has this sort of angle. The
other
> sort of program is a sym-city type program where the player manages the
> resources of the bernal sphere and tries to achieve some goal such as
> building anothe bernal sphere. Sim city has a sort of top down perspective
> which is somewhat disappointing in that you would see the whole bernal
sphere
> at once rather than walking through it. Most games have to challenge the
> player in some way. Another possiblity would be motorcycle races around
the
In a message dated 11/7/00 7:39:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, ssi@...
writes:
components for science fiction or action adventure are. I was just saying
that for SSI to be associated with an effort it would need to avoid
violence. I could be action or exploration orienented. Someone may base a
violence-based game on what they see from reading The High Frontier, but we
would have no control over that nor would we promote it. I look at all the
mail but just respond to those that seem like they are looking for what
SSI's poistion is or what they have done on something. I hope I have
cleared up any confusion. Bettie Greber >>
Ok then, perhaps a Sim City sort of game. The Player tries to build an
orbital colony. Perhaps we can still include a walk through mode. Perhaps
civic unrest could be referred to without being displayed. For example, I one
time played a game called Hamurabi where I played the ruler of an ancient
city state. The City state has an annual income from crops grown and with
this income, the player gets to decide whether to buy land, grain, build
temples, dig canals, etc. If you manage the city poorly the citizens of the
city get rid of you and you lose the game, or an army invades when you are
not militarily prepared and your city-state is wiped off the map. For an
orbital colony there would be decisions made based on Tax rates. Energy
prices would fluxuate which would effect income from the SPSs, and controlled
Fusion could be invented, there are defense issues, not all of which invove a
human opponent, but most of them would. One might increase the thickness of
the Bernal sphere's outer hull to provide additional protection from meteor
impacts. There may be competing orbital settlements, realistically you cannot
rule out combat between them, but wars can be resolved abstractly. The Bernal
Sphere manager may decide to move the colony. Municiple funds may be used in
asteroid mining ventures, building additional agricultural colonies.
Tom Kalbfus
Exactly, and there can be different colonoies, different sizes, ranging from
the first colony that would house about 100 people to the larger ones
described in THF.
> writes:
>
><< I was referring to your conversations with Jon Beck. I understand what
the
> components for science fiction or action adventure are. I was just
saying
> that for SSI to be associated with an effort it would need to avoid
> violence. I could be action or exploration orienented. Someone may base
a
> violence-based game on what they see from reading The High Frontier, but
we
> would have no control over that nor would we promote it. I look at all
the
> mail but just respond to those that seem like they are looking for what
> SSI's poistion is or what they have done on something. I hope I have
> cleared up any confusion. Bettie Greber >>
>
> Ok then, perhaps a Sim City sort of game. The Player tries to build an
> orbital colony. Perhaps we can still include a walk through mode. Perhaps
> civic unrest could be referred to without being displayed. For example, I
one
> time played a game called Hamurabi where I played the ruler of an ancient
> city state. The City state has an annual income from crops grown and with
> this income, the player gets to decide whether to buy land, grain, build
> temples, dig canals, etc. If you manage the city poorly the citizens of
the
> city get rid of you and you lose the game, or an army invades when you are
> not militarily prepared and your city-state is wiped off the map. For an
> orbital colony there would be decisions made based on Tax rates. Energy
> prices would fluxuate which would effect income from the SPSs, and
controlled
> Fusion could be invented, there are defense issues, not all of which
invove a
> human opponent, but most of them would. One might increase the thickness
of
> the Bernal sphere's outer hull to provide additional protection from
meteor
> impacts. There may be competing orbital settlements, realistically you
cannot
> rule out combat between them, but wars can be resolved abstractly. The
Bernal
> Sphere manager may decide to move the colony. Municiple funds may be used
in
> Ok then, perhaps a Sim City sort of game. The Player tries to build
> an orbital colony. Perhaps we can still include a walk through mode.
We should. I see no reason why not. The mayor walks through the
habitat, and if most people smile at him he knows that he is doing a
good job for the population, at least.
I suppose the mayor would have to do a very bad job then. Or else
be not elected, but hired for the job by investors who have forgotten
the Boston Tea Party ---
> For an orbital colony there would be decisions made based on Tax
> rates.
That depends on the economy of the habitat. It could be, for early
habitats which are extensions of the Earth society more than entities
with their own identity and purpose, that people are paid in free
housing, energy, food, clothes, medical services, education, and not
much else in the habitat - but run up a big payroll on the Earth,
taxed by the Earth governments to which they belong. They can then
use this big payroll to import consumer goods from the Earth, or save
it for retirement in a more money-based economy - the Earth, or the
much larger habitats of the future.
Then the mayor would not tax the inhabitants, though he would have
to make decisions on production and allocation of goods - if the
inhabitants decide that they are tired of cabbage and would like more
raspberries, and the potato crop is less than expected, he has to deal
with that.
> Energy prices would fluxuate which would effect income from the
> SPSs,
This would effect the habitat only indirectly if the habitat sells
powersats rather than retaining ownership of them, selling the
electricity.
> and controlled Fusion could be invented,
That will hardly change electricity prices in the short run,
because very probably fusion will be very expensive. It has been
twenty years into the future for thirty years now, and it is expected
that if it becomes a reality, fusion power plants will have to be so
large that one will supply the entirety of northern Europe with
electricity. Or maybe it was the entirety of Europe.
> there are defense issues, not all of which invove a human opponent,
> but most of them would.
There would hardly be such issues in orbit, unless you include
terrorist attacks in "defence issues". That, OTOH, will probably be a
very real concern, with both individual crackpots, mad cults like that
of Shoko Asahara, and hostile entities going for any high-profile
target. Someone, possibly Osama bin Laden, killed two hundred
innocent African civilians because he expected that the same blasts
would kill some of his designated enemies - US federal employees. A
one track mad mind like that can also destroy the first attempt at
industrialization of space in furtherance of his grievances on the
Earth.
> One might increase the thickness of the Bernal sphere's outer
> hull to provide additional protection from meteor impacts. There
> may be competing orbital settlements, realistically you cannot
> rule out combat between them, but wars can be resolved abstractly.
I think that combat between them can be ruled out, for the same
reason war between the USA and the EU is now a ludicrous idea. It
would be otherwise if every petty dictator were able to build orbital
settlements.
Jon L. Beck.
This would effect the habitat only indirectly if the habitat sells
powersats rather than retaining ownership of them, selling the
electricity. One of the conclusions of the High Frontier studies was that it wouldbe preferable to sell the SPS rather than to retain ownership and sell the power, as one would achieve breakeven much more quickly. > and controlled Fusion could be invented,
That will hardly change electricity prices in the short run,
because very probably fusion will be very expensive. It could very well be the case that we're still building SPS even in a world of commercial fusion reactors, provided that SPS could undersell fusion. Detractor like to believe that fusion would be the death knell for SPS, and then assert that fusion needsonly a little bit more money to come about. Neither may be the case. It has been
twenty years into the future for thirty years now, I've heard others say 15 years in the future for about 45 years now. :) and it is expected
that if it becomes a reality, fusion power plants will have to be so
large that one will supply the entirety of northern Europe with
electricity. Or maybe it was the entirety of Europe. But in fairness, SPS operates most efficiently at a very large scale. I just don't happen to think that large, monolithic power generation systems are immoral. There's a reason they've predominated: They're more efficient, and hence more economical. Rgds, Mike Combs
In a message dated 11/8/00 9:21:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, mikecombs@...
writes:
powersats rather than retaining ownership of them, selling the
electricity.
One of the conclusions of the High Frontier studies was that it would be
preferable to sell the SPS rather than to retain ownership and sell the
power, as one would achieve breakeven much more quickly. >>
Of course the buyer of the SPS would have to estimate the value of it by
looking at the market cost of electricity and then evaluate the future
possible revenue stream. Since the buyer will be taking the risk he will have
to estimate the present value based of the total expected future revenue
stream of electricity sales over the lifetime of the SPS, since he is taking
the risk, the price he will offer for the SPS will be less by some amount
than the present value of the revenue he expects to get since investor expect
a profit.
and controlled Fusion could be invented,
That will hardly change electricity prices in the short run,
because very probably fusion will be very expensive.
It could very well be the case that we're still building SPS even in a world
of commercial fusion reactors, provided that SPS could undersell fusion.
Detractor like to believe that fusion would be the death knell for SPS, and
then assert that fusion needs only a little bit more money to come about.
Neither may be the case.
It has been
twenty years into the future for thirty years now, >>
But so has SPS and space colonies, if fact they might happen at the same time.
<
that if it becomes a reality, fusion power plants will have to be so
large that one will supply the entirety of northern Europe with
electricity. Or maybe it was the entirety of Europe. >>
Couldn't a fusion reactor be as large as say, a Bernal Sphere? If it is as
large as that it would still be smaller than an SPS although it may contain
more volume. A really good fusion reactor would have the power output,
relative to the mass of its fuel, or the same proportion as a thermo-nuclear
bomb except the fusion reactor would not destroy itself in the process.
<
are immoral. There's a reason they've predominated: They're more efficient,
and hence more economical.
Rgds,
Mike Combs >>
On the other hand a fusion reactor is not all a downside for building space
colonies. Supplying solar power to ground stations is not the only game in
town. Part of what governs whether we build space colonies is the cost of
transportation from Earth to Low Earth Orbit. One reason to build a Bernal
Sphere might be as an orbital hotel and people would go there just to have an
experience in space. One idea I've had for the Bernal Sphere would be to have
the sphere portion be non-rotating and to have the hotel rooms at 1 Earth
gravity in the rings section where the agricultural areas would normally go
in the standard bernal sphere design. People would pay for the experience to
ride up into orbit in a ground to orbit shuttle, dock with the bernal sphere
and float around in the 500 meter wide pressurized Bernal sphere, and when
they are through for the day, they would retire to their 1 G hotel rooms in
the habitat rings. Or if they like, perhaps all the rings down rotate at the
same rate. Some rooms would have 1 G "gravity" others would be at 0.5 G, and
still others would be "Mars" rooms at 0.38 G and others would be Luna rooms
at 0.16 G. People would pay for the weightlessness as a unique experience
rather than just duplicate gravitational conditions on the Earth's surface.
Fusion also opens up more opportunities. The Daedalus Starship design relies
on pellet implosion (inertial confinement fusion) or the type now being
worked on the the National Ignition facility as a substitute for underground
H-bomb tests. If we could scale up the two stage Daedalus design and replace
the payload bay with a Bernal sphere, we could create a manned starship which
could reach 12% of the speed of light, leaving some payload capacity for a
supplementary fusion reactor or fission reactor and a coil of superconducting
cable the could be deployed into space to create a magsail so the manned
starship can decelerate against the stellar wind once it approaches its
destination star.
Tom Kalbfus
> > This would effect the habitat only indirectly if the habitat
> > sells powersats rather than retaining ownership of them,
> > selling the electricity.
> One of the conclusions of the High Frontier studies was that it
> would be preferable to sell the SPS rather than to retain
> ownership and sell the power, as one would achieve
> breakeven much more quickly.
Yes. That is why I made that comment.
> > plants will have to be so large that one will supply the entirety
> > of northern Europe with electricity. Or maybe it was the
> > entirety of Europe.
> But in fairness, SPS operates most efficiently at a very large
> scale. I just don't happen to think that large, monolithic power
> generation systems are immoral. There's a reason they've
> predominated: They're more efficient, and hence more
> economical.
Yes, but one power plant per continent is still *very* monolithic.
SPS would be one power plant per country the size of Denmark, if most
of the electric energy were to come from SPS. One power plant per
state in the USA on average, except that you have a lot of hydro
power - the mountaneous states will need SPS less, as will my homeland
Norway.
Of course, in mountaneous areas it will be the most difficult to
find a site for the rectenna. Good job it isn't the other way around.
:-)
If the electric energy of Europe, say, becomes mainly SPS, with
roughly one powersat + rectenna per five million citizens, one
powersat or rectenna may go down, and the rest of them will be able to
supply power to the afflicted area. Certainly there will be
interruptions - easily predictable - in the power during spring and
autumn when the powersats pass through the shadow of the Earth a few
times. The power lines are already connected across the borders - in
wet years, Denmark buys electricity from Sweden and Norway, which have
hydro power, and in dry years, electricity from the coal-fired Danish
plants go the other way.
If most of the electric energy of Europe came from one fusion
plant, and *that* one went down, we'd be up shit creek with a turd for
a paddle for sure --- or we'd have to keep lots of old coal, gas and
nuclear plants ready just in case, to be fired up with minutes' or at
most hours' notice. Somehow I get the feeling that this would not be
very cheap.
Jon L. Beck.
In a message dated 11/8/00 4:56:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jonlennart.beck@... writes:
plant, and *that* one went down, we'd be up shit creek with a turd for
a paddle for sure --- or we'd have to keep lots of old coal, gas and
nuclear plants ready just in case, to be fired up with minutes' or at
most hours' notice. Somehow I get the feeling that this would not be
very cheap.
Jon L. Beck.
>>
But what if it cost as much to build a Fusion reactor that could power the
entire continent of Europe as it would to build an SPS that could power
Norway? You could build an additional redundant fusion reactor or perhaps two
that could go online if one failed. Building an SPS on the ground would be
cheaper than building one in space, but supposed you built one in space. The
Money used for building an SPS could be used to build something larger and
more massive on the ground. It could be that building a Fusion Reactor that
could power a whole continent on the ground would cost the same as building
an SPS in orbit that could power Norway. These are unknowns of course since
we have no working commercial fusion reactors and we haven't built an SPS.
For the SPS research would have to go into building cheap access to space to
get the project started on an economical basis. For the fusion reactor
research would need to go into building a self-sustaining fusion reactor that
can generate electricity at an economical rate. Research is proceeding toward
both goals, but who's to say who will reach their target first. I think
Fusion is an enabling technology rather than a disabling one. Cheaper energy
would make travel into space less expensive. A typical fusion rocket has been
described as a fusion reactor with a leak in one side, this idea would work
in the vacuum of space, but not in Earth's atmosphere since the atmosphere
would cool the plasma and prevent the fusion fuel from fusion. In this there
is two ways around this problem. The fusion reactor could stay on the ground
and power a laser that could propel a separate vehicle into orbit. The other
idea is to have the fusion reactor on the vehicle itself if sufficiently
miniturizable. The reactor would be completely enclosed and the energy
obtained from it would be used to super heat the atmosphere or a hydrogen
propellent to plasma temperatures. Of course the fusing plasma would not be
mixed with the propellent. Perhaps expended fusion plasma could be
magnetically pinched off and sent into another chamber where it can mix
explosively with the atmosphere or propellent. This would result in a "put
put" engine simular to orion, but on a smaller scale.
Fusion would allow the large scale settlement of the outer Solar System and
ultimately interstellar space, since all you need is fusion fuel and a fusion
reactor.
But who's right and who's wrong? who's to say. I think another specialized
function of an SPS would be in the production of antimatter for energy
storage for interstellar flight, this might productively be done much closer
to the Sun where the Solar Flux would remain compeditive with fusion power
production. The Sun after all requires little maintenance. An SPS close
enough to the Sun could equal the power production efficiency of any given
fusion reactor. Perhaps if power generated very near the sun could be beamed
over interplanetary distances.
Tom Kalbfus
These are unknowns of course since
we have no working commercial fusion reactors and we haven't built an SPS.
I would say that the unknowns for fusion are greater. In both cases, there would be engineering unknowns. In the case of fusion, there is additionally technology unknowns, since at this point we've not yet developed the technology needed for commercial fusion. A typical fusion rocket has been
described as a fusion reactor with a leak in one side, I used to take it for granted that if we could build a commercial fusion reactor, making a fusion rocket would be even easier (almost a step backward), and once made a statement very similar to the above on one of the space newsgroups. Someone pointed out that as soon as one allows even a small amount of plasma to controllably leak, one has cooled the remaining plasma, making sustaining the reaction more difficult. So what I got out of the correction was that fusion rockets may be considerably more difficult than power generators, and may not necessarily come on the heels of power generators. I think another specialized
function of an SPS would be in the production of antimatter for energy
storage for interstellar flight, this might productively be done much closer
to the Sun where the Solar Flux would remain compeditive with fusion power
production. The Sun after all requires little maintenance. Perhaps the raw material of Mercury might be used. Perhaps if power generated very near the sun could be beamed
over interplanetary distances. O'Neill was a big believer in beamed power. I get a little nervous over the proposition of not having your power supply with you, but the counter-argument is that it's advantageous when you don't have to haul around the weight of it.
Regards,
Of course the buyer of the SPS would have to estimate the value of it by
looking at the market cost of electricity and then evaluate the future
possible revenue stream. Since the buyer will be taking the risk he will have
to estimate the present value based of the total expected future revenue
stream of electricity sales over the lifetime of the SPS, since he is taking
the risk, the price he will offer for the SPS will be less by some amount
than the present value of the revenue he expects to get since investor expect
a profit.
All true, but I have to assume the studies had concluded that reaching breakeven more quickly was more critical than maximizing profits in the longer term. I remember O'Neill saying a SPS could be easily sold for $10 billion. I'm not sure what that would be now corrected for subsequent inflation and the current costs for power.
One idea I've had for the Bernal Sphere would be to have
the sphere portion be non-rotating and to have the hotel rooms at 1 Earth
gravity in the rings section where the agricultural areas would normally go
in the standard bernal sphere design. I'd stick with the rotating sphere, bearing in mind that there'll be a fairly large volume up near the spin axis where gravity would be practically nonexistent. I've seen design drawings which included a cylindrical area around the spin axis enclosed in some panty hose-like material. Something which wouldn't block the sunlight, and wouldn't be a major eyesore, but would prevent folks flying around up there from getting too far away from the axis. Or if they like, perhaps all the rings down rotate at the
same rate. Some rooms would have 1 G "gravity" others would be at 0.5 G, and
still others would be "Mars" rooms at 0.38 G and others would be Luna rooms
at 0.16 G. Kraft Erhke (sp?) once designed a rotating pleasure resort for LEO. One of the features was recreations of the lunar and Martian surface, including the gravity. So a person might have an experience very much like having visited a planet without even leaving orbit. Rgds, Mike Combs