# 14948 byhollroa@... on June 6, 2001, 10:14 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The cost of containers is a lot cheaper than the cost of terraforming
and can be done a lot more quickly.
generations.
It is so long term and hypothetical I really do not see any point in
discussing it.
I am interested in practical projects to get us out there as quickly as
possible.
I would rather visit a container space colony today, or at least within
my lifetime, than dream about a terraform planet I will never see.
The general public has a good comfort zone for flying in pressurized
aircraft, so I really do not see container colonies as something people
will regard as unsafe. In fact, they will be safer than commercial
aircraft today for several reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some good points. Having said that, one of the greatest problems that
human beings face, is the inability to think beyond their own life times.
One of the attributes that made the Japanese so successful, was their
ability to work towards a goal that would take more than 5 years to fulfil.
Accepting that a goal will take more than 5 years to achieve, but still
being willing to work hard towards that goal, enormously increases your
chances of success. In my limited experience, most Americans and Europeans,
have little care for what happens when they are gone from the world. This
attitude
is a bad one. It encourages pollution and abuse of all people and things
around them.
We are all guilty of displaying this unfortunate trait.
But it helps to remember, that 70% of what we discuss on this list,
will not come to pass before we are all very old men. I am 22 years old
and I do not expect that an island-one colony will be built before I hit
sixty. But I know that my young son may very well live in an island-one
habitat.
The difficulties associated with raising large amounts of finance, tend to
make such ventures long-term projects. This is not to say that they are not
worthy of attention. Most people on this list have children who will
DEFINITELY
be able to watch the construction of island-one colonies and will probably
live in them.
Tony
# 14949 byrmenich@... on June 6, 2001, 10:41 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I disagree strongly. The "long-term focus" --- or perhaps lack of any
reasonable focus --- is why NASA spends its dollars on the Space Station,
on Mars, and on other activities that bear little relation to making
near-term space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources happen.
Such space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources holds the
promise of starting an entirely new sector of the economy that will
eventually have an economic impact greater than that of the Internet. The
sooner this happens, the sooner the compounding effects of time and money
will benefit us all. The longer we wait --- for example, by spending our
money on more Mars probes instead of searching for ice at the Lunar poles
--- the longer those economic returns get pushed out into the future, and
the lower their net present value becomes.
hollroa@...
Please respond to
ssi_list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The cost of containers is a lot cheaper than the cost of terraforming
and can be done a lot more quickly.
Terrafroming will not happen within my lifetime, or even for several
generations.
It is so long term and hypothetical I really do not see any point in
discussing it.
I am interested in practical projects to get us out there as quickly as
possible.
I would rather visit a container space colony today, or at least within
my lifetime, than dream about a terraform planet I will never see.
The general public has a good comfort zone for flying in pressurized
aircraft, so I really do not see container colonies as something people
will regard as unsafe. In fact, they will be safer than commercial
aircraft today for several reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some good points. Having said that, one of the greatest problems that
human beings face, is the inability to think beyond their own life times.
One of the attributes that made the Japanese so successful, was their
ability to work towards a goal that would take more than 5 years to fulfil.
Accepting that a goal will take more than 5 years to achieve, but still
being willing to work hard towards that goal, enormously increases your
chances of success. In my limited experience, most Americans and Europeans,
have little care for what happens when they are gone from the world. This
attitude
is a bad one. It encourages pollution and abuse of all people and things
around them.
We are all guilty of displaying this unfortunate trait.
But it helps to remember, that 70% of what we discuss on this list,
will not come to pass before we are all very old men. I am 22 years old
and I do not expect that an island-one colony will be built before I hit
sixty. But I know that my young son may very well live in an island-one
habitat.
The difficulties associated with raising large amounts of finance, tend to
make such ventures long-term projects. This is not to say that they are not
worthy of attention. Most people on this list have children who will
DEFINITELY
be able to watch the construction of island-one colonies and will probably
live in them.
Tony
# 14950 byhollroa@... on June 6, 2001, 11:08 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>>I disagree strongly. The "long-term focus" --- or perhaps lack of any
reasonable focus --- is why NASA spends its dollars on the Space Station,
on Mars, and on other activities that bear little relation to making
near-term space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources happen.
Such space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources holds the
promise of starting an entirely new sector of the economy that will
eventually have an economic impact greater than that of the Internet. The
sooner this happens, the sooner the compounding effects of time and money
will benefit us all. The longer we wait --- for example, by spending our
money on more Mars probes instead of searching for ice at the Lunar poles
--- the longer those economic returns get pushed out into the future, and
the lower their net present value becomes.>>>>
actually postpone the date that we are actually able to achieve Mars
colonisation,
rather than speed it up. The O'Neill vision must come first. This is not
to say
that we should give no attention at all, to efforts that further our
understanding
of Mars. Nor would I be prepared to abandon projects that work towards
Mars colonisation.
Merely, I would assert, that the majority of our concentration should be
focused upon
the exploitation of the lunar and asteroidal resources. The use of these
resources
would allow us to build spacecraft that could ferry enormous numbers of
colonists
from LEO to the Martian surface. The idea of using Mars colonisation as
one of the
drivers behind space colonisation, is a good one. But it needs to be
realised, that
large scale colonisation of Mars, will require an enormous amount of space
infrastructure.
This can only be created by employing the plan that O'Neill laid out for
us.
It is the short-term rush to Mars, rather than the establishment of long
term
infrastructure, that is likely to waste a great deal of time and money.
Once again,
a lack of long term thinking.
Tony
# 14951 byrmenich@... on June 6, 2001, 12:45 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Fair.
exploration of any objects other than Luna and NEOs. For the meantime,
just forget about Mars, Europa, and Pluto. There will be plenty of
opportunities to do research on other solar system objects once a 1000
people are living in space and we can fill up our probe at the local liquid
oxygen gas station.
The critical path research items that I think desparately need to be
addressed in the near-term have nothing to do with Mars; nor with the
long-term effects of weightlessness on the human body; nor with closed
ecosystem research; nor with producing ball-bearings in free-fall; nor
with the study of how rats, spiders, monkeys, or other animals and plants
react to free-fall; nor with how deep the lunar mantle is; nor with the
possibility of present or past life off the Earth.
Rather, the research items that should be top priority are:
* Finding, with high probability, all NEOs 100 meters or larger, and
confirming in detail their orbits;
* Assessing lunar polar ice, and possibilities for its extraction;
* Assessment of other possible concentrated ore bodies and resources on
Luna, such as volcanic vents, lava tubes with cold traps, etc.;
* Detailed geologic, chemical, etc. characterization of a couple dozen NEOs
Not every research item associated with Luna and NEOs will be useful. For
example, we really don't need to know exactly how large the core of Luna
is, we only need to know about the top 5 meters of regolith. If we find
out how large the core of the Moon is while attempting to assess the top
five meters of regolith, that's grand, but it shouldn't be the focus of our
investigation.
We need to put on some serious blinders, and keep our eyes on the target
and only on the target.
Ron Menich
hollroa@...
Please respond to thereof)
ssi_list
>>>>I disagree strongly. The "long-term focus" --- or perhaps lack of any
reasonable focus --- is why NASA spends its dollars on the Space Station,
on Mars, and on other activities that bear little relation to making
near-term space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources happen.
Such space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources holds the
promise of starting an entirely new sector of the economy that will
eventually have an economic impact greater than that of the Internet. The
sooner this happens, the sooner the compounding effects of time and money
will benefit us all. The longer we wait --- for example, by spending our
money on more Mars probes instead of searching for ice at the Lunar poles
--- the longer those economic returns get pushed out into the future, and
the lower their net present value becomes.>>>>
Of course you are correct. NASA's disillusioned obsession with Mars will
actually postpone the date that we are actually able to achieve Mars
colonisation,
rather than speed it up. The O'Neill vision must come first. This is not
to say
that we should give no attention at all, to efforts that further our
understanding
of Mars. Nor would I be prepared to abandon projects that work towards
Mars colonisation.
Merely, I would assert, that the majority of our concentration should be
focused upon
the exploitation of the lunar and asteroidal resources. The use of these
resources
would allow us to build spacecraft that could ferry enormous numbers of
colonists
from LEO to the Martian surface. The idea of using Mars colonisation as
one of the
drivers behind space colonisation, is a good one. But it needs to be
realised, that
large scale colonisation of Mars, will require an enormous amount of space
infrastructure.
This can only be created by employing the plan that O'Neill laid out for
us.
It is the short-term rush to Mars, rather than the establishment of long
term
infrastructure, that is likely to waste a great deal of time and money.
Once again,
a lack of long term thinking.
Tony
# 14952 byprestonsmith@... on June 6, 2001, 8 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
puttin on my blinders ,eyes focused on the target,the objective-the rape and
pillage of NEOS ,Luna and what have you !With total disregard for the
possible inhabitants , wouldn't it be cheaper faster better to just club
baby seals ,cut down the old growth forests,and then spend a couple o'months
celebrating in the Canadian Mars habitat simulation. love the dumdstupid
guy who values life your ours and theirs
> Fair.
>
> Still, I'd be quite willing to give up for the next twenty years all
> exploration of any objects other than Luna and NEOs. For the meantime,
> just forget about Mars, Europa, and Pluto. There will be plenty of
> opportunities to do research on other solar system objects once a 1000
> people are living in space and we can fill up our probe at the local
liquid
> oxygen gas station.
>
> The critical path research items that I think desparately need to be
> addressed in the near-term have nothing to do with Mars; nor with the
> long-term effects of weightlessness on the human body; nor with closed
> ecosystem research; nor with producing ball-bearings in free-fall; nor
> with the study of how rats, spiders, monkeys, or other animals and plants
> react to free-fall; nor with how deep the lunar mantle is; nor with the
> possibility of present or past life off the Earth.
>
> Rather, the research items that should be top priority are:
> * Finding, with high probability, all NEOs 100 meters or larger, and
> confirming in detail their orbits;
> * Assessing lunar polar ice, and possibilities for its extraction;
> * Assessment of other possible concentrated ore bodies and resources on
> Luna, such as volcanic vents, lava tubes with cold traps, etc.;
> * Detailed geologic, chemical, etc. characterization of a couple dozen
NEOs
>
> Not every research item associated with Luna and NEOs will be useful. For
> example, we really don't need to know exactly how large the core of Luna
> is, we only need to know about the top 5 meters of regolith. If we find
> out how large the core of the Moon is while attempting to assess the top
> five meters of regolith, that's grand, but it shouldn't be the focus of
our
> investigation.
>
> We need to put on some serious blinders, and keep our eyes on the target
> and only on the target.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> hollroa@...
ssi_list@...
[ssi_list] Long-term planning (an unfortunate lack,
> Please respond to thereof)
> ssi_list
>
> >>>>I disagree strongly. The "long-term focus" --- or perhaps lack of any
> reasonable focus --- is why NASA spends its dollars on the Space Station,
> on Mars, and on other activities that bear little relation to making
> near-term space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources happen.
> Such space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources holds the
> promise of starting an entirely new sector of the economy that will
> eventually have an economic impact greater than that of the Internet.
The
> sooner this happens, the sooner the compounding effects of time and money
> will benefit us all. The longer we wait --- for example, by spending our
> money on more Mars probes instead of searching for ice at the Lunar poles
> --- the longer those economic returns get pushed out into the future, and
> the lower their net present value becomes.>>>>
>
> Of course you are correct. NASA's disillusioned obsession with Mars will
> actually postpone the date that we are actually able to achieve Mars
> colonisation,
> rather than speed it up. The O'Neill vision must come first. This is not
> to say
> that we should give no attention at all, to efforts that further our
> understanding
> of Mars. Nor would I be prepared to abandon projects that work towards
> Mars colonisation.
> Merely, I would assert, that the majority of our concentration should be
> focused upon
> the exploitation of the lunar and asteroidal resources. The use of these
> resources
> would allow us to build spacecraft that could ferry enormous numbers of
> colonists
> from LEO to the Martian surface. The idea of using Mars colonisation as
> one of the
> drivers behind space colonisation, is a good one. But it needs to be
> realised, that
> large scale colonisation of Mars, will require an enormous amount of
space
# 14953 byrmenich@... on June 7, 2001, 8:48 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
"Possible inhabitants" on NEOs and Luna???? Oh please, spare me.
Please respond
to ssi_list
puttin on my blinders ,eyes focused on the target,the objective-the rape
and
pillage of NEOS ,Luna and what have you !With total disregard for the
possible inhabitants , wouldn't it be cheaper faster better to just club
baby seals ,cut down the old growth forests,and then spend a couple
o'months
celebrating in the Canadian Mars habitat simulation. love the dumdstupid
guy who values life your ours and theirs
>
> Fair.
>
> Still, I'd be quite willing to give up for the next twenty years all
> exploration of any objects other than Luna and NEOs. For the meantime,
> just forget about Mars, Europa, and Pluto. There will be plenty of
> opportunities to do research on other solar system objects once a 1000
> people are living in space and we can fill up our probe at the local
liquid
> oxygen gas station.
>
> The critical path research items that I think desparately need to be
> addressed in the near-term have nothing to do with Mars; nor with the
> long-term effects of weightlessness on the human body; nor with closed
> ecosystem research; nor with producing ball-bearings in free-fall; nor
> with the study of how rats, spiders, monkeys, or other animals and plants
> react to free-fall; nor with how deep the lunar mantle is; nor with the
> possibility of present or past life off the Earth.
>
> Rather, the research items that should be top priority are:
> * Finding, with high probability, all NEOs 100 meters or larger, and
> confirming in detail their orbits;
> * Assessing lunar polar ice, and possibilities for its extraction;
> * Assessment of other possible concentrated ore bodies and resources on
> Luna, such as volcanic vents, lava tubes with cold traps, etc.;
> * Detailed geologic, chemical, etc. characterization of a couple dozen
NEOs
>
> Not every research item associated with Luna and NEOs will be useful.
For
> example, we really don't need to know exactly how large the core of Luna
> is, we only need to know about the top 5 meters of regolith. If we find
> out how large the core of the Moon is while attempting to assess the top
> five meters of regolith, that's grand, but it shouldn't be the focus of
our
> investigation.
>
> We need to put on some serious blinders, and keep our eyes on the target
> and only on the target.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> hollroa@...
ssi_list@...
[ssi_list] Long-term planning (an unfortunate lack,
> Please respond to thereof)
> ssi_list
>
> >>>>I disagree strongly. The "long-term focus" --- or perhaps lack of
any
> reasonable focus --- is why NASA spends its dollars on the Space Station,
> on Mars, and on other activities that bear little relation to making
> near-term space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources
happen.
> Such space industrialization using extraterrestrial resources holds the
> promise of starting an entirely new sector of the economy that will
> eventually have an economic impact greater than that of the Internet.
The
> sooner this happens, the sooner the compounding effects of time and money
> will benefit us all. The longer we wait --- for example, by spending
our
> money on more Mars probes instead of searching for ice at the Lunar poles
> --- the longer those economic returns get pushed out into the future, and
> the lower their net present value becomes.>>>>
>
> Of course you are correct. NASA's disillusioned obsession with Mars
will
> actually postpone the date that we are actually able to achieve Mars
> colonisation,
> rather than speed it up. The O'Neill vision must come first. This is not
> to say
> that we should give no attention at all, to efforts that further our
> understanding
> of Mars. Nor would I be prepared to abandon projects that work towards
> Mars colonisation.
> Merely, I would assert, that the majority of our concentration should be
> focused upon
> the exploitation of the lunar and asteroidal resources. The use of these
> resources
> would allow us to build spacecraft that could ferry enormous numbers of
> colonists
> from LEO to the Martian surface. The idea of using Mars colonisation as
> one of the
> drivers behind space colonisation, is a good one. But it needs to be
> realised, that
> large scale colonisation of Mars, will require an enormous amount of
space
# 14954 byhollroa@... on June 7, 2001, 9:12 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>>"Possible inhabitants" on NEOs and Luna???? Oh please, spare me.>>>>
the lunar mare!! Seriously, Some carbonaceous NEA's do contain
hydrated clays and salts. Suppose we do find a few sulphur metabolising
microbes close to the sun-warmed surface? Not exactly a strong
possibility. But can we say for certain, that this is impossible?
Due to their low crushing strength and their solubility in water,
very few carbonaceous meteors have actually been discovered. They either
burn up as meteors, or if they do make it to the ground, they
explode on impact, or dissolve in the first rain storm.
Not something that I would honestly lose sleep over,
but can we rule it out?
Tony
# 14955 byhollroa@... on June 8, 2001, 6:50 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>>>>Fair.
exploration of any objects other than Luna and NEOs. For the meantime,
just forget about Mars, Europa, and Pluto. There will be plenty of
opportunities to do research on other solar system objects once a 1000
people are living in space and we can fill up our probe at the local liquid
oxygen gas station.
The critical path research items that I think desparately need to be
addressed in the near-term have nothing to do with Mars; nor with the
long-term effects of weightlessness on the human body; nor with closed
ecosystem research; nor with producing ball-bearings in free-fall; nor
with the study of how rats, spiders, monkeys, or other animals and plants
react to free-fall; nor with how deep the lunar mantle is; nor with the
possibility of present or past life off the Earth.
Rather, the research items that should be top priority are:
* Finding, with high probability, all NEOs 100 meters or larger, and
confirming in detail their orbits;
* Assessing lunar polar ice, and possibilities for its extraction;
* Assessment of other possible concentrated ore bodies and resources on
Luna, such as volcanic vents, lava tubes with cold traps, etc.;
* Detailed geologic, chemical, etc. characterization of a couple dozen NEOs
Not every research item associated with Luna and NEOs will be useful. For
example, we really don't need to know exactly how large the core of Luna
is, we only need to know about the top 5 meters of regolith. If we find
out how large the core of the Moon is while attempting to assess the top
five meters of regolith, that's grand, but it shouldn't be the focus of our
investigation.
We need to put on some serious blinders, and keep our eyes on the target
and only on the target.
Ron Menich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sounds sensible. This program would certainly work.
Hypothetical situation. You are elected as minister for space, in a
hypothetical European country, called Hypothetica. Hypothetica is one of
richest nations in the world, but most of the money is used up just through
maintaining the public services. You are given a budget of about $2-$3
billion per year and want to fulfil the O'Neill vision as quickly as you
can. You have almost total discretion in how you spend the money. There are
nearly sixty million people in your country, and many of them dream of
going into space, walking the lunar deserts, living in O'Neill colonies
and enjoying cheap electricity. If you keep them waiting for too long they
will grow impatient. Your visionary space ambitions are part of what got
you elected and the people are itching to see results. What sort of space
policy would you design? What would you consider to be the optimum
schedule?
Actually, I tell a lie. This isn't entirely hypothetical. In fact its
not that hypothetical at all.
Tony
# 14956 byThomasKalbfus@... on June 8, 2001, 8:05 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
In a message dated 6/8/01 7:50:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hollroa@... writes:
Hypothetical situation. You are elected as minister for space, in a
hypothetical European country, called Hypothetica. Hypothetica is one of
richest nations in the world, but most of the money is used up just through
maintaining the public services. You are given a budget of about $2-$3
billion per year and want to fulfil the O'Neill vision as quickly as you
can. You have almost total discretion in how you spend the money. There are
nearly sixty million people in your country, and many of them dream of
going into space, walking the lunar deserts, living in O'Neill colonies
and enjoying cheap electricity. If you keep them waiting for too long they
will grow impatient. Your visionary space ambitions are part of what got
you elected and the people are itching to see results. What sort of space
policy would you design? What would you consider to be the optimum
schedule?
Actually, I tell a lie. This isn't entirely hypothetical. In fact its
not that hypothetical at all.
Tony
>>
There is such a thing as too future oriented. NASA was like this in the
1970's doing all sorts of studies while neglecting manned spaceflight
operations. If someone asked, the reply was "were working on it", or "its in
the future".
# 14957 byhollroa@... on June 8, 2001, 8:16 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>There is such a thing as too future oriented. NASA was like this in the
1970's doing all sorts of studies while neglecting manned spaceflight
operations. If someone asked, the reply was "were working on it", or "its
in
the future".>>>
described, what would be on your agenda?
Tony
# 14958 byrmenich@... on June 8, 2001, 8:32 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Well since you asked....
", which is certainly true for a public program. The public likes pretty
pictures, so all exploratory probes should include high-quality
visible-light imagery to satisfy and maintain that interest. The
scientists may be more interested in what the gamma-ray spectrometer is
saying, but as was found during Mars Pathfinder, the public loves pretty
pictures easily available at Websites.
As I mentioned in my earlier note, finding all NEOs (and not losing them
after first discovery!!) above 100 meters is, I believe, a top priority
item. Five more ground-based observatories of the caliber of the LINEAR
scope, all located in the Southern Hemisphere and doing automated sky
searches, would be a good start. Figure $50 million each for
construction, several million per year operating costs. This would be
followed later by a fleet of 10 identical or near identical 1-meter
space-based NEO hunter telescopes positioned at various points within the
inner solar system (e.g., Earth L4/L5, Venus L4/L5, Mars L4/L5) doing
automated sky searches. Let's figure $300 million for the first one, and
$100 million for each additional copy (NEAR Shoemaker was $223 million,
soup to nuts). The public could be kept interested by continued stress on
the fact that we could be eradicated if we don't find these --- it doesn't
make much sense to spend our time looking for black holes when a simple
rock could really ruin our day! Public safety issue. All of this
NEO-hunting stuff would only amount to $2 billion, maybe. And then we
could sleep easier.
[As a nice side-effect, we'ed also find oodles of smaller NEOs, and also
short- and long-period comets, Centaurs, and TNOs.]
Once all the 100+ meter NEOs have been found, let's select 20 for visits by
probe of the caliber of NEAR Shoemaker. The 20 selected should be
selected based on factors that will likely make them useful for space
industrialization. Figure $250 million for the first copy and $100 million
thereafter, or $2 billion total, roughly.
Meanwhile, carpet Luna with 10 identical teleoperated rovers with various
scientific equipment on them to hunt for concentrated ore deposits. (Take
lots of movies and pretty pictures, of course). Another $1.5 billion.
And perhaps most importantly, spend another $2 billion on a collection of
probes and rovers to explore the lunar poles for ice and other volatiles.
I think I've chewed up $8 billion so far (remind me how much NASA gets per
year??), and maybe 10 years --- easily fundable under a $2-$3 billion per
year budget.
At this point, we'ed be in a much better position to determine whether Luna
or some NEO makes most sense for an initial mining effort. Narrow down
the field of candidates with another $2 billion worth of probes, landers,
etc. Make that selection, and initiate a program to return to HEO 365 tons
per year of material. If people are needed, so be it, but try to minimize
their involvement as much as possible --- Hypothetica doesn't have the
budget for humans in space. Once the material begins to return to the
high Earth orbit stockpile, auction it off in lots of a ton or 10 tons each
to winning bidders, public and private. Continue to return 365 tons per
year ad infinitum, or until such time as doing so becomes irrelevant
because private mining companies are returning an order of magnitude more
material. At such time, government involvement would end --- government
involvement should not aim to displace private involvement.
This last part --- establishing a HEO stockpile of 365 tons per year of
extraterrestrial material and operating it ad infinitum --- would be much
more costly, of course, say $50 billion for setup and a couple of billion
per year operations. I don't think that the setup could be funded within
a $2-$3 billion per year budget. Auctions of the returned material --- it
could be presold, too, long before any material arrives --- would generate
some cash, but I think we'ed be fooling ourselves if we thought it would be
profitable from get-go. Not sure Hypothetica could do the last step
alone, and it might have to seek investment and risk partners for the
startup costs.
But Hypothetica could easily find all the big NEOs, and characterize Luna
and 20 NEOs within that budget over 10 or so years... alone.
My finger-in-the-air estimate for all these activities is less than the $95
billion already spent on ISS. If I'm underestimating by a factor of 2,
the cost would still be quite comparable to ISS.
Ron Menich
hollroa@...
Please respond to thereof)
ssi_list
...
Sounds sensible. This program would certainly work.
Hypothetical situation. You are elected as minister for space, in a
hypothetical European country, called Hypothetica. Hypothetica is one of
richest nations in the world, but most of the money is used up just through
maintaining the public services. You are given a budget of about $2-$3
billion per year and want to fulfil the O'Neill vision as quickly as you
can. You have almost total discretion in how you spend the money. There are
nearly sixty million people in your country, and many of them dream of
going into space, walking the lunar deserts, living in O'Neill colonies
and enjoying cheap electricity. If you keep them waiting for too long they
will grow impatient. Your visionary space ambitions are part of what got
you elected and the people are itching to see results. What sort of space
policy would you design? What would you consider to be the optimum
schedule?
Actually, I tell a lie. This isn't entirely hypothetical. In fact its
not that hypothetical at all.
Tony
# 14959 byCharles Radley on June 8, 2001, 9:14 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Ron,
One thing I might add would be that some more lunar rovers should be
doing a seismic survey to look for lava tubes. A lunar orbiter or two
should be looking for lava tube candidates.
Cheers,
CR.
# 14960 byhollroa@... on June 8, 2001, 9:20 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I suppose that the UK most likely fits the description of Hypothetica.
Population = 59,511,464 (July 2000 est.)
revenues: $541 billion
A country like this could easily afford a $2-3billion/year space program.
A $50-$100billion space investment, over a period of five years could be
achieved if it were deemed important to the nation.
For this nation in particular, a $15 billion per year space investment
(about the same as the NASA budget) would represent
about 2.8% of the government revenue. This could be achieved at a push.
It would seem that Germany, Britain, France, A Belgo-Dutch partnership or
any one of the G8 countries could fulfil the O'Neill vision if they had a
particuarly visionary leader or a big kick in the arse. Most European
nations seem to be suffering from a national lethargy, when it comes to
space expenditures.
Tony
# 14961 byrmenich@... on June 8, 2001, 10:29 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Thanks. I concur: looking for lunar lava tubes is a good idea. I
think some of my suggested 10 rovers would be exploring volcanic sites
anyway, because of the possibility of finding volatiles there due to
fumaroles and other ores. And lava tubes with openings might have stored
volatiles in cold traps much like the lunar poles.
NEOs might be able to visit 60 NEOs with appropriate planning, thus making
this a really impactful exploration program; c.f., the Hera program
http://www.uark.edu/misc/hera/. Imagine 60 NEOs characterized to the
level of 433 Eros. Alternatively, 20 NEOs could be explored with, say, 7
probes, thus lowering the cost of the exploration program to under $1
billion.
Ron Menich
Charles
thereof)
06/08/01
10:23 AM
Please
respond to
ssi_list
Ron,
Your proposed exploration program is right on in my opinion.
One thing I might add would be that some more lunar rovers should be
doing a seismic survey to look for lava tubes. A lunar orbiter or two
should be looking for lava tube candidates.
Cheers,
CR.
# 14962 byArthur Smith on June 8, 2001, 10:42 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Separate topic: forgot to mention that my suggested 20 robotic probes to
> NEOs might be able to visit 60 NEOs with appropriate planning, thus making
> this a really impactful exploration program; c.f., the Hera program
> http://www.uark.edu/misc/hera/. Imagine 60 NEOs characterized to the
> level of 433 Eros. Alternatively, 20 NEOs could be explored with, say, 7
> probes, thus lowering the cost of the exploration program to under $1
> billion.
from continuing operations - the people on the ground who keep in touch
with the probes and keep them running and doing the right thing, and
sending the data to the right places, etc. The more you save money by
mass-manufacture of robotic probes to the same design, the higher the
fraction of your final costs are going to be eaten up in the mission
operations side of the budget. Unless we can come up with a
substantially cheaper way of doing continuing operations under the
conditions of having several dozen simultaneously active missions.
Probably mostly a process and "workflow" issue that could be handled by
some nice computer engineering than a real show-stopper, but it had
better not be forgotten or you'll be eating up your budget a lot faster
than you expect.
Arthur (apsmith@...
# 14963 byrmenich@... on June 8, 2001, 12:40 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Point well-taken. Add $1 billion or so to my overall estimates for
upgrading of the Deep Space Network, and other ground support activiites.
Arthur Smith
ssi_list@...
apsmith@... thereof)
.aps.org
06/08/01
11:40 AM
Please
respond to
ssi_list
> Separate topic: forgot to mention that my suggested 20 robotic probes
to
> NEOs might be able to visit 60 NEOs with appropriate planning, thus
making
> this a really impactful exploration program; c.f., the Hera program
> http://www.uark.edu/misc/hera/. Imagine 60 NEOs characterized to the
> level of 433 Eros. Alternatively, 20 NEOs could be explored with, say,
7
> probes, thus lowering the cost of the exploration program to under $1
> billion.
One caveat on all this - a good portion of your costs are going to come
from continuing operations - the people on the ground who keep in touch
with the probes and keep them running and doing the right thing, and
sending the data to the right places, etc. The more you save money by
mass-manufacture of robotic probes to the same design, the higher the
fraction of your final costs are going to be eaten up in the mission
operations side of the budget. Unless we can come up with a
substantially cheaper way of doing continuing operations under the
conditions of having several dozen simultaneously active missions.
Probably mostly a process and "workflow" issue that could be handled by
some nice computer engineering than a real show-stopper, but it had
better not be forgotten or you'll be eating up your budget a lot faster
than you expect.
Arthur (apsmith@...
# 14964 byMitchell E. James on June 8, 2001, 1:05 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
...
Sounds sensible. This program would certainly work.
Hypothetical situation. You are elected as minister for space, in a
hypothetical European country, called Hypothetica. Hypothetica is one of
richest nations in the world, but most of the money is used up just through
maintaining the public services. You are given a budget of about $2-$3
billion per year and want to fulfil the O'Neill vision as quickly as you
can. You have almost total discretion in how you spend the money. There are
nearly sixty million people in your country, and many of them dream of
going into space, walking the lunar deserts, living in O'Neill colonies
and enjoying cheap electricity. If you keep them waiting for too long they
will grow impatient. Your visionary space ambitions are part of what got
you elected and the people are itching to see results. What sort of space
policy would you design? What would you consider to be the optimum
schedule?
Actually, I tell a lie. This isn't entirely hypothetical. In fact its
not that hypothetical at all.
Tony
I do not disagree with anything that Ron or Arthur said about things that need done. I do however have concerns about the assumptions underlying the question of how do you go about doing these things.
The NASA approach:
Create a large self perpetuating bureaucracy coupled to a voracious job supplying industrial complex.
Spend most of a project changing the requirements to burn budget without accomplishing anything.
Make sure political concerns out weigh anything else so that alternatives never see the light of day. (Some country donates a robotic arm without any reference to design requirements or alternative approaches that has a 100% chance of failure, then be sure to build your whole system around it. Don't want to seem ungrateful. Sorry, soapbox item, I was at a conference ten years ago where this happened. Today's problems are just a result of the NASA way that caused me to write letters to congressmen after that conference requesting that NASA be dismantled.)
And add all the other things any of us have ever complained about.
Define your political requirements first!
Is the goal Pax Hypothetica? How much control do you expect to end up with?
Is this being done for the good of all mankind or a more limited set?
Do you expect any financial returns or is this a public works project?
What is the maximum size the government bureaucracy should be? What is the minimum?
What is the minimum number of jobs that industry must have? What is the maximum that will be allowed? Remember that every job created is a constituency that is trying to keep themselves employed and that can be a real problem when paying them takes money away from more important activities.
What % of the money must be spent in Hypothetica?
What methods will be used to provide limelight for politicians in control? ISS could be considered the fall-out of a American President's need to have something to talk about at a press conference after a meeting with the Soviets.
It would be really great if this was a public works project.
My approach would be along these lines:
1. No more than a 10 man central office.
2. Create 2 to 10 independent non-profit membership research centers modeled on SSI that would receive 50% of the budget. The reason to use the SSI approach is that these would be citizen groups increasing citizen involvement and providing money (dues, etc.) that would supplement government money. SSI franchises might be interesting.
3. 25% of the money would be distributed to aerospace companies to do X in Y time or no more contracts. Preferably they would be creating infrastructure for the research centers to use.
4. 25% would be spent on blue sky startups or approaches that could seriously reduce the cost of getting there. Collaborative engineering seems like a good example.
I would try really hard to think of ways of creating public involvement. Remote robotic operators could be chosen from people who bought the simulator, had passing scores, and bought a time slot. The highest scores would get free time slots and some nominal pay. How many decisions really need to be made behind closed doors by a select few. The more open to the public the better. All designs and discussions should be open via something like . I think that if NASA was forced to make everything available on the web for public comment that we would have a very different program and much more worldwide interest.
Wrap-up:
If Hypothetica does things the way NASA does them, then they will be a two-bit player in NASA's game. That could be an easy acceptable solution to some. To be more than a two-bit player is going to require breaking all the rules. Time to live on the edge.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
# 14965 byrmenich@... on June 8, 2001, 1:44 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
No argument from me regarding the perverse incentives and outcomes of NASA
projects.
what reason, I don't know. To expect rationality is probably too much to
ask. But it will continue to get $15 billion a year. I just wish those
$15 billion could be spent on less dopey things than ISS and missions to
Pluto/Mercury/Europa/Mars.
Ron Menich
"Mitchell E.
Sent by: thereof)
root@...
atters.com
06/08/01 02:02
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list
...
Sounds sensible. This program would certainly work.
Hypothetical situation. You are elected as minister for space, in a
hypothetical European country, called Hypothetica. Hypothetica is one
of
richest nations in the world, but most of the money is used up just
through
maintaining the public services. You are given a budget of about $2-$3
billion per year and want to fulfil the O'Neill vision as quickly as
you
can. You have almost total discretion in how you spend the money.
There are
nearly sixty million people in your country, and many of them dream of
going into space, walking the lunar deserts, living in O'Neill
colonies
and enjoying cheap electricity. If you keep them waiting for too long
they
will grow impatient. Your visionary space ambitions are part of what
got
you elected and the people are itching to see results. What sort of
space
policy would you design? What would you consider to be the optimum
schedule?
Actually, I tell a lie. This isn't entirely hypothetical. In fact
its
not that hypothetical at all.
Tony
I do not disagree with anything that Ron or Arthur said about things that
need done. I do however have concerns about the assumptions underlying the
question of how do you go about doing these things.
The NASA approach:
Create a large self perpetuating bureaucracy coupled to a voracious job
supplying industrial complex.
Spend most of a project changing the requirements to burn budget without
accomplishing anything.
Make sure political concerns out weigh anything else so that alternatives
never see the light of day. (Some country donates a robotic arm without any
reference to design requirements or alternative approaches that has a 100%
chance of failure, then be sure to build your whole system around it.
Don't want to seem ungrateful. Sorry, soapbox item, I was at a conference
ten years ago where this happened. Today's problems are just a result of
the NASA way that caused me to write letters to congressmen after that
conference requesting that NASA be dismantled.)
And add all the other things any of us have ever complained about.
Define your political requirements first!
Is the goal Pax Hypothetica? How much control do you expect to end up
with?
Is this being done for the good of all mankind or a more limited set?
Do you expect any financial returns or is this a public works project?
What is the maximum size the government bureaucracy should be? What is the
minimum?
What is the minimum number of jobs that industry must have? What is the
maximum that will be allowed? Remember that every job created is a
constituency that is trying to keep themselves employed and that can be a
real problem when paying them takes money away from more important
activities.
What % of the money must be spent in Hypothetica?
What methods will be used to provide limelight for politicians in control?
ISS could be considered the fall-out of a American President's need to have
something to talk about at a press conference after a meeting with the
Soviets.
It would be really great if this was a public works project.
My approach would be along these lines:
1. No more than a 10 man central office.
2. Create 2 to 10 independent non-profit membership research centers
modeled on SSI that would receive 50% of the budget. The reason to use the
SSI approach is that these would be citizen groups increasing citizen
involvement and providing money (dues, etc.) that would supplement
government money. SSI franchises might be interesting.
3. 25% of the money would be distributed to aerospace companies to do X in
Y time or no more contracts. Preferably they would be creating
infrastructure for the research centers to use.
4. 25% would be spent on blue sky startups or approaches that could
seriously reduce the cost of getting there. Collaborative engineering
seems like a good example.
I would try really hard to think of ways of creating public involvement.
Remote robotic operators could be chosen from people who bought the
simulator, had passing scores, and bought a time slot. The highest scores
would get free time slots and some nominal pay. How many decisions really
need to be made behind closed doors by a select few. The more open to the
public the better. All designs and discussions should be open via
something like . I think that if NASA was forced to
make everything available on the web for public comment that we would have
a very different program and much more worldwide interest.
Wrap-up:
If Hypothetica does things the way NASA does them, then they will be a
two-bit player in NASA's game. That could be an easy acceptable solution
to some. To be more than a two-bit player is going to require breaking all
the rules. Time to live on the edge.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
# 14966 byThomasKalbfus@... on June 8, 2001, 6:35 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
In a message dated 6/8/01 9:17:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hollroa@... writes:
1970's doing all sorts of studies while neglecting manned spaceflight
operations. If someone asked, the reply was "were working on it", or "its
in
the future".>>>
So if you were minister for space in a hypothetical nation, like the one
described, what would be on your agenda?
Tony
>>
Map Mercury, Send a Manned Expedition to Mars, develop low cost
transportation to Earth Orbit, build orbital telescopes to search for
extra-solar planets. Begin long term plans for an interstellar expedition by
2099.
Tom Kalbfus
# 14967 byThomasKalbfus@... on June 8, 2001, 6:44 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
In a message dated 6/8/01 10:21:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hollroa@... writes:
A $50-$100billion space investment, over a period of five years could be
achieved if it were deemed important to the nation.
For this nation in particular, a $15 billion per year space investment
(about the same as the NASA budget) would represent
about 2.8% of the government revenue. This could be achieved at a push.
It would seem that Germany, Britain, France, A Belgo-Dutch partnership or
any one of the G8 countries could fulfil the O'Neill vision if they had a
particuarly visionary leader or a big kick in the arse. Most European
nations seem to be suffering from a national lethargy, when it comes to
space expenditures.
Tony
>>
Germany is the one that stands out. Where did all their rocket scientists go?
The Germans need to detach themselves from their Grandfather's legacy, if
someone tries to shame them for starting World War II, they should say we all
have black sheep in the family. I think the Germans are well positioned to
give those French and Russians their come-uppance. I know those from the East
would be glad to show those Russians a thing or two after ruining their lives
and oppressing them for 40 years.
Tom Kalbfus
# 14968 byZachary Ernst Sorenson on June 8, 2001, 9:18 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
YEAH! Goddard was a cool guy, Tsilkowsky (cannot spell that name) was a
dreamer; but it took Oberth and Von Braun to do the man's work (or woman's).
NASA was almost good when he was around :)!
In a message dated 6/8/01 10:21:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hollroa@... writes:
<< A country like this could easily afford a $2-3billion/year space program.
A $50-$100billion space investment, over a period of five years could be
achieved if it were deemed important to the nation.
For this nation in particular, a $15 billion per year space investment
(about the same as the NASA budget) would represent
about 2.8% of the government revenue. This could be achieved at a push.
It would seem that Germany, Britain, France, A Belgo-Dutch partnership or
any one of the G8 countries could fulfil the O'Neill vision if they had a
particuarly visionary leader or a big kick in the arse. Most European
nations seem to be suffering from a national lethargy, when it comes to
space expenditures.
Tony
>>
Germany is the one that stands out. Where did all their rocket scientists
go?
The Germans need to detach themselves from their Grandfather's legacy, if
someone tries to shame them for starting World War II, they should say we
all
have black sheep in the family. I think the Germans are well positioned to
give those French and Russians their come-uppance. I know those from the
East
would be glad to show those Russians a thing or two after ruining their
lives
and oppressing them for 40 years.
Tom Kalbfus
# 14969 byprestonsmith@... on June 8, 2001, 9:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> In a message dated 6/8/01 10:21:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> hollroa@... writes:
>
><< A country like this could easily afford a $2-3billion/year space
program.
> A $50-$100billion space investment, over a period of five years could be
> achieved if it were deemed important to the nation.
> For this nation in particular, a $15 billion per year space investment
> (about the same as the NASA budget) would represent
> about 2.8% of the government revenue. This could be achieved at a push.
>
> It would seem that Germany, Britain, France, A Belgo-Dutch partnership
or
> any one of the G8 countries could fulfil the O'Neill vision if they had a
> particuarly visionary leader or a big kick in the arse. Most European
> nations seem to be suffering from a national lethargy, when it comes to
> space expenditures.
>
> Tony
> >>
>
> Germany is the one that stands out. Where did all their rocket scientists
go?
> The Germans need to detach themselves from their Grandfather's legacy, if
> someone tries to shame them for starting World War II, they should say we
all
> have black sheep in the family. I think the Germans are well positioned to
> give those French and Russians their come-uppance. I know those from the
East
> would be glad to show those Russians a thing or two after ruining their
lives
# 14970 byprestonsmith@... on June 8, 2001, 9:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> In a message dated 6/8/01 10:21:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> hollroa@... writes:
>
><< A country like this could easily afford a $2-3billion/year space
program.
> A $50-$100billion space investment, over a period of five years could be
> achieved if it were deemed important to the nation.
> For this nation in particular, a $15 billion per year space investment
> (about the same as the NASA budget) would represent
> about 2.8% of the government revenue. This could be achieved at a push.
>
> It would seem that Germany, Britain, France, A Belgo-Dutch partnership
or
> any one of the G8 countries could fulfil the O'Neill vision if they had a
> particuarly visionary leader or a big kick in the arse. Most European
> nations seem to be suffering from a national lethargy, when it comes to
> space expenditures.
>
> Tony
> project paperclip
>
> Germany is the one that stands out. Where did all their rocket scientists
go?
> The Germans need to detach themselves from their Grandfather's legacy, if
> someone tries to shame them for starting World War II, they should say we
all
> have black sheep in the family. I think the Germans are well positioned to
> give those French and Russians their come-uppance. I know those from the
East
> would be glad to show those Russians a thing or two after ruining their
lives
# 14971 byhollroa@... on June 11, 2001, 5:19 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
To be honest, I don't really like the Hypothetica idea. It is too much
about colonialism.
that need done. I do however have concerns about the assumptions
underlying the question of how do you go about doing these things.
The NASA approach:
Create a large self perpetuating bureaucracy coupled to a voracious job
supplying industrial complex.
Spend most of a project changing the requirements to burn budget without
accomplishing anything.
Make sure political concerns out weigh anything else so that alternatives
never see the light of day. (Some country donates a robotic arm without any
reference to design requirements or alternative approaches that has a 100%
chance of failure, then be sure to build your whole system around it.
Don't want to seem ungrateful. Sorry, soapbox item, I was at a conference
ten years ago where this happened. Today's problems are just a result of
the NASA way that caused me to write letters to congressmen after that
conference requesting that NASA be dismantled.)
And add all the other things any of us have ever complained about. >>>>>
>>>>Define your political requirements first!>>>>>
I suppose that if a nation like Germany, UK, France or Netherlands?, etc,
were to initiate such a huge program, it would be done in manner similar
to, but in no ways identical to, the JFK model. It is quite likely that the
government would use the space project and all of its promises ( O'Neill
colonies, ordinary people in space, people on the moon, enormous wealth
from the asteroids, etc) as the central idea for motivating the public and
the economy. Conquering space would more or less become the mission
statement of the country. This would seem to be extremely healthy for the
nation involved. After all, where would most Americans like their country
to be in 100 years? As long as the program is well managed and the nation
is sufficiently focused on the goal to avoid distraction, they would
probably conquer the solar system.
Unfortunately, the end result would be nothing less than
Neo-colonialism.
>>>>Is this being done for the good of all mankind or a more limited
set?>>>>
Unfortunately, the nation involved is likely to be selfish. Do you think
that the Chinese conduct their space program, on the basis that it is good
for mankind? I doubt that it has ever even once crossed their minds.
>>>>>Do you expect any financial returns or is this a public works
project?>>>>>
It would start out as a works project, probably the governments central
project, around which it motivated the general public. As the project
matured and a practical, exporting moon base (probably nuclear powered and
equipped with mass-driver) was set up, along with a large island-A type
construction shack in HEO, the operation would increasingly become self
funding. The initial NEA mining operations could return large amounts of
refined Platinum group metals to HEO as well as volatiles. The platinum
would be sold on Earth in an attempt to subsidise the mining operation.
Eventually, as the construction shack begins to produce SPS satellites,
communication satellites and space hotels, the project would begin to break
even. At this point, Hypothetica would enormously expand its operations.
The moon base would be expanded and would be equipped with either powerful
nuclear reactors or solar cells that were manufactured in orbit. This would
allow export rates of lunar materials to exceed 1 million tonnes per year.
The island-A type workshop (50m in diameter) would soon be replaced with
much larger work facilities, may 200-300 m in diameter. Eventually, as more
and more SPS satellites and communication satellites are sold, the revenue
that is generated by the project would become very substantial. At this
point, Hypothetica would begin to consider the construction of fully
fledged island-one colonies, in order to house the growing space work
force. Colonisation of Mars could be seriously considered. We could finally
afford to send that damn probe to Pluto as well!
I suppose that an interesting model for the project, would be a private
limited company. The citizens of Hypothetica would be its share holders.
>>>>>>>>What is the maximum size the government bureaucracy should be?
What is the minimum?
What is the minimum number of jobs that industry must have? What is the
maximum that will be allowed? Remember that every job created is a
constituency that is trying to keep themselves employed and that can be a
real problem when paying them takes money away from more important
activities.>>>>>>>>>>>
The amount of jobs that are created would be minimised. Hypothetica would
not be able to afford (and would not tolerate) a NASA style bureaucracy
>>>>What % of the money must be spent in Hypothetica?>>>>>
For Germany, $15 billion dollar/year funding represents 0.6% GDP. For the
UK, about 1%. For France about 1.1%. For Italy, about 1.3%.For the
Netherlands, about 3.5%. For Belgium, about 5%, For Spain, about 1.9%.
In reality, freeing up 5% of your GDP is a mammoth task. Even for the UK
and France, finding $15 billion would be no easy task. For the Netherlands,
trying to fulfil the O'Neill dream in this way, would require restructuring
the entire economy. For Belgium, it is probably just plain impossible. This
why the European space agency was formed in the first place. None of the
European nations have any imperial ambitions as such. Without this driver,
huge national projects in space will not materialise. The European space
program was designed to protect Europe's interests in the satellite
industry, not conquer new worlds. For some of the smaller nations, a joint
colonial project might be practical. Belgium and the Netherlands, could
fund NASA's entire $15 billion budget with about 2% of their combined
GDP's, or 5% of their combined government budgets. This would be a stretch
for both economies, but it could be done. Some of the larger economies,
like the UK, Germany, France and Italy, could probably carry out such a
project, alone. For the UK at least, finding the $15 billion that are
currently required to fund NASA, could probably be done without degrading
any public services.
>>>>>What methods will be used to provide limelight for politicians in
control? ISS could be considered the fall-out of a American President's
need to have something to talk about at a press conference after a meeting
with the Soviets.>>>>>
This isn't really about looking good in front of the Russians. It has a
lot more to do with building an empire and securing your countries place as
a dominant member of the worlds family of nations. For a lot of European
countries, the domination of space is probably the only remaining method
for achieving this as independent entities. That is the message that you
send out to the public:
"We can make you the masters of the solar system, within 40 years. All of
the many worlds, riches and curiosities of the solar system (including the
Earth and her many nations) would be at your disposal, to use, abuse or
ignore as you desire. Hypothetica would rule the stars"
Something like this, would appeal to the people of a nation where
right-wing nationalism had become extremely popular. The politicians that
gave such speeches would assert an image of great power. This would appeal
to many egotistical politicians. You would also continuously remind your
people, of the huge amount of wealth that is actually locked up within the
asteroids, and the prospect of SPS's.
>>>>It would be really great if this was a public works project.>>>>
A public works project, is probably about the only way that a European
country could pull it off.
The colonialist model of space based expansion is probably the least
appealing. It could in principle, work wonders as a method of motivating
millions of people around a common national goal. Many would become
intoxicated with the ideas. Such a project would certainly be succesful in
colonising space. Unfortunately, it is an exclusive club. How many
Americans or Russians would feel happy about Brittania or Germany ruling
the stars?
Tony
# 14972 byhollroa@... on June 11, 2001, 6:43 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>>>What % of the money must be spent in Hypothetica?>>>>>
Hypothetica is. If hypothetica is the US, then it is reasonable to assume
that 95% of the required hardware would be manufactured within Hypothetica.
If we are talking about Germany, UK or France, that figure is likely to
fall to around 70-80%. For a much smaller economy, like Sweden or the
Netherlands, only a small proportion of the required hardware could be
produced within the borders of the nation. In these cases, the governments
would have no choice but to outsource. The Big boys in Europe Are Germany,
UK, France, Italy and Spain, in that order. Germany or the UK are
certainly the richest two nations within Europe, the third and fourth
richest economies in the world, respectively. The space program could
theoretically be self-contained within either of these nations. This would
appear to be more desirable as it would help to prevent a jealous
competitor from shutting you down, or steering you away from the goal. On
the other side of things, although you may create more jobs for your own
people this way, it is less cost effective.
It is worth mentioning, that even the US Apollo project was not a zero
sum game. The US economy grew at a rate of some 4-5% per year, during the
Apollo era. Giant, visionary space programs that inspire millions of
people, certainly can do wonders for an economy. In terms of economic
growth for the country, the O'Neill concept would function like Apollo on
speed. We should also consider that for a smaller economy, the effect would
be much more concentrated. Unlike Apollo, the O'Neill concept is also
specifically designed to produce an economic return. For a nation like
Germany or the UK, the economy would probably skyrocket. Eventually, the
true value of the project would be realised by other nations. As it became
clear that Hypothetica was about to emerge as the dominant space faring
nation, private investment would drive the economy forward at an enormous
rate. Combine this with the enormous revenues that the country would later
earn by cornering the communications and power industry, along with
construction of space hotels, missile defence shields, etc. and you find
that hypothetica gets very rich, very fast. Why didn't any of the European
nations think of this?
Tony
# 14973 byrmenich@... on June 11, 2001, 7:33 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
What does mapping Mercury buy for you? What will you be better able to do
with more detailed knowledge of Mercury?
ThomasKalbfus
07:35 PM thereof)
Please
respond to
ssi_list
In a message dated 6/8/01 9:17:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hollroa@... writes:
>>There is such a thing as too future oriented. NASA was like this in
the
1970's doing all sorts of studies while neglecting manned spaceflight
operations. If someone asked, the reply was "were working on it", or "its
in
the future".>>>
So if you were minister for space in a hypothetical nation, like the one
described, what would be on your agenda?
Tony
>>
Map Mercury, Send a Manned Expedition to Mars, develop low cost
transportation to Earth Orbit, build orbital telescopes to search for
extra-solar planets. Begin long term plans for an interstellar expedition
by
2099.
Tom Kalbfus
# 14974 byhollroa@... on June 11, 2001, 7:41 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>>>>What does mapping Mercury buy for you? What will you be better able
to do
with more detailed knowledge of Mercury?>>>>>
materials from the planets surface is impractical at best. Even if there
were mountains made of platinum, stacked up on the planets surface, it
would not make economic sence to consider mining them. It is also
blistering hot during day, freezing cold at night and has substantial
gravity. I cannot foresee any immiediate (within 100 years) advantage of
gathering more information on Mercury. Sending a probe to Pluto is just
plain silly.
Tony
# 14975 byMitchell James on June 11, 2001, 9:29 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> As it became
>clear that Hypothetica was about to emerge as the dominant space faring
>nation, private investment would drive the economy forward at an
enormous
>rate. Combine this with the enormous revenues that the country would
later
>earn by cornering the communications and power industry, along with
>construction of space hotels, missile defence shields, etc. and
you find
>that hypothetica gets very rich, very fast. Why didn't any of the
European
>nations think of this?
> Tony
spurs the American public like a real challenge that has people on
the other side. The challenge of just doing space stuff is dull
to the American public because there is nobody on the other team.
But provide a real competitor and there could be very fast movement.
There are several states and multinational corporations that have
larger budgets than most EU nations that could be just as effective.
The Russians are in poor economic position at the moment but they
also have the potential to take up the challange. At the moment
that the EU was starting to see economic return, there would be several
large locomotives coming full steam intent on crushing them. I have
entertained the idea previously that if NASA was broken up and we
could start a four way competition between New York, Florida, California,
and Texas that we could see some real progress in space industrialization.
At the moment the states defer to NASA.
I think that the wide open stealth approach would be best for the
EU. Define a budget that does NOT require national mobilization.
Something that can be sustained for 30 years. Even the EU public
will lose interest after so many years. Use the approach that I
previously defined to build up expertise and capability so that enough
potential is generated that at somepoint in time a little extra money
can kick off serious development.
However, I hope that you do the frontal attack big budget approach.
It might be the spark that will start the rest of the world moving.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)
# 14976 byMitchell James on June 11, 2001, 9:33 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> As it became
>clear that Hypothetica was about to emerge as the dominant space faring
>nation, private investment would drive the economy forward at an
enormous
>rate. Combine this with the enormous revenues that the country would
later
>earn by cornering the communications and power industry, along with
>construction of space hotels, missile defence shields, etc. and
you find
>that hypothetica gets very rich, very fast. Why didn't any of the
European
>nations think of this?
> Tony
spurs the American public like a real challenge that has people on
the other side. The challenge of just doing space stuff is dull
to the American public because there is nobody on the other team.
But provide a real competitor and there could be very fast movement.
There are several states and multinational corporations that have
larger budgets than most EU nations that could be just as effective.
The Russians are in poor economic position at the moment but they
also have the potential to take up the challange. At the moment
that the EU was starting to see economic return, there would be several
large locomotives coming full steam intent on crushing them. I have
entertained the idea previously that if NASA was broken up and we
could start a four way competition between New York, Florida, California,
and Texas that we could see some real progress in space industrialization.
At the moment the states defer to NASA.
I think that the wide open stealth approach would be best for the
EU. Define a budget that does NOT require national mobilization.
Something that can be sustained for 30 years. Even the EU public
will lose interest after so many years. Use the approach that I
previously defined to build up expertise and capability so that enough
potential is generated that at somepoint in time a little extra money
can kick off serious development.
However, I hope that you do the frontal attack big budget approach.
It might be the spark that will start the rest of the world moving.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)
# 14977 byMitchell James on June 11, 2001, 9:58 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> As it became
>clear that Hypothetica was about to emerge as the dominant space faring
>nation, private investment would drive the economy forward at an
enormous
>rate. Combine this with the enormous revenues that the country would
later
>earn by cornering the communications and power industry, along with
>construction of space hotels, missile defence shields, etc. and
you find
>that hypothetica gets very rich, very fast. Why didn't any of the
European
>nations think of this?
> Tony
spurs the American public like a real challenge that has people on
the other side. The challenge of just doing space stuff is dull
to the American public because there is nobody on the other team.
But provide a real competitor and there could be very fast movement.
There are several states and multinational corporations that have
larger budgets than most EU nations that could be just as effective.
The Russians are in poor economic position at the moment but they
also have the potential to take up the challange. At the moment
that the EU was starting to see economic return, there would be several
large locomotives coming full steam intent on crushing them. I have
entertained the idea previously that if NASA was broken up and we
could start a four way competition between New York, Florida, California,
and Texas that we could see some real progress in space industrialization.
At the moment the states defer to NASA.
I think that the wide open stealth approach would be best for the
EU. Define a budget that does NOT require national mobilization.
Something that can be sustained for 30 years. Even the EU public
will lose interest after so many years. Use the approach that I
previously defined to build up expertise and capability so that enough
potential is generated that at somepoint in time a little extra money
can kick off serious development.
However, I hope that you do the frontal attack big budget approach.
It might be the spark that will start the rest of the world moving.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)