Sorry, but this is so backwards. REALITY CHECK TIME! Now think hard.
How many billions have we just spent putting up a few SMALL modules and
how many billions will we continue to spend to keep it operational. Now
how much larger and more complicated would it be to put together a
colony? A thousand times? A million times? I wouldn't consider it an inevitable fact that if Island One massesX times as much as ISS that Island One must cost X times as much. Not building Island One on a cost-plus contract and making technical decisions based on technical concerns rather than international politics might make all the difference in the world.

Regards,

Mike Combs

In a message dated 3/22/01 9:31:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, mikecombs@...
writes:

<< I wouldn't consider it an inevitable fact that if Island One masses X times
as much as ISS that Island One must cost X times as much. Not building
Island One on a cost-plus contract and making technical decisions based on
technical concerns rather than international politics might make all the
difference in the world.

Regards,

Mike Combs
>>

We would need to develop new launch technologies to achieve the necessary
economies of scale even if we were to use extra-terrestrial material in its
construction. I think NEAs are the best bet since they contain all the
materials we need. the Moon can even help to capture it into Earth Orbit.

Tom Kalbfus

We would need to develop new launch technologies to achieve the necessary
economies of scale even if we were to use extra-terrestrial material in its
construction. Total agreement here. I think NEAs are the best bet since they contain all the
materials we need. the Moon can even help to capture it into Earth Orbit. True. And even SSI may be shifting away from the moon and toward NEAs. Although having said that, I need to add that SSI did help support the last Return to the Moon conference. Personally, I still expect the moon to enter into themix as a source of raw materials. The NEAs have their advantages, and I wouldn't minimize them at all. But the moon's proximity to Earth gives it advantages of its own. Telerobotics development might push us in the direction of the moon first, and NEAs after initial use of space resources has made it easier and more economical to support people in space.

Regards,

Mike Combs

I have to agree with Mike here. In fact, I think the IIS was the
largest initial cost. As a research facility it could start by
researching manufacturing and construction techniques that will make
build modules in situ easier. Then all that has to be done is send up
raw material. A tonne of steel is easier to transport and is cheaper
to send up, since it is more compact, and no one in his right mind is
going to ship it using the shuttle. After module building is old hat,
space agriculture could easily decrease the number of trips going up,
and increase the population is space.

The research has to be directed to boot strap a space settlement and
not in the random experiments of the moment that it is being used for
today.

This is the purpose of commiting to a program in space. Once you have
a reason to be up there, you develop the technology to stay up there.
If that means mining the moon, or NEAs or Manned mission to Mars or
Pluto so be it.

>
> Sorry, but this is so backwards. REALITY CHECK TIME! Now think
hard.
> How many billions have we just spent putting up a few SMALL modules
and
> how many billions will we continue to spend to keep it operational.
Now
> how much larger and more complicated would it be to put together a
> colony? A thousand times? A million times?
>
> I wouldn't consider it an inevitable fact that if Island One masses
X times
> as much as ISS that Island One must cost X times as much. Not
building
> Island One on a cost-plus contract and making technical decisions
based on
> technical concerns rather than international politics might make all
the