I'm forwarding this post from another list for comments, please.
Starship Aurora http://www.starshipaurora.com>
* * * * *
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:44:18 -0600
Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm>
I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
bias against nuclear development in space which
was not explained. I saw discussion concerning
the benefits of solar power out to a great distance
from the sun but much of the construction materials
for large space based habitats past Mars and the
asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
from the inner solar system. The vast majority of
mass in low gravity wells is in the form of cometary
material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.
The problems concerning populations doubling
every forty years are acknowledged to only be delayed
by moving into the nearby solar system. In reality
it does not directly benefit Earth population pressures
at all [the indirect benefits may be large however].
There has never been any serious talk of large masses
of people moving to space in order to relieve the Earth
of population pressures. The numbers of people you
would need to move are simply staggering. The most you
can hope for is to establish new off-Earth
civilizations from a vanishing small seed population
originating from the Earth. There are more people
in the rest of the world now then there was before
European colonization of the Americas. A small
number of people migrated to the Americas but
populations continued to grow outside and inside
of the Americas. Geometric population growth will
occur in space the same as it does on Earth. After
a geologically very short time the solar system will
feel population pressures the same as the Earth
does now. Long before that happens more seed
population groups will have moved outside of the
solar system.
Moon, Mars, and/or asteroid infrastructure will
need to be erected before large space based
habitats can be erected from materials originating
from space. Although the Moon and Mars have low
gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
platform, at a greatly reduced cost. Asteroids
in particular may require circular tracks for
artificial gravity health reasons. Economics
works in space like anywhere else. Industrial
processes will drive where and how habitats are
born during early development. At some point
luxury may allow untold types of habitats.
Securing the niche is always the hardest first
step. The resources and know how exist today
to begin the colonization of space. Big government
concerned with immediate day to day functions
and the next election may eventually allow
the private sector to proceed but it will always
be by permission, not by right.
I think the first steps towards a future in space
should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
and the single stage to orbit space plane programs.
Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
small asteroid companion in concert with a
permanently manned Mars colony. This combination
will establish a permanent technological infrastructure
which can build up indefinitely from there including
free-floating space structures if seen as economical
in light of industrial developments.
Dennis May
Fowarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs
I wrote (11/11):
>Although the Moon and Mars have low
>gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
>perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
>platform, at a greatly reduced cost.
Mike Combs mikecombs@... wrote (11/12):
>Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built
>10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?
At some point hundreds of people will be involved
in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
orbital habitat is constructed. For reasons of
efficiency and health these people should spend as
much time as practical under a 1 G environment.
Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth.
Those doing sedentary work in particular should have
offices in rail cars, sleep, and eat while under 1 G.
It is by far cheaper to keep someone traveling in a
circle than to degrade their health and ship people
back and forth to the Earth.
I would expect that circle tracks will be a permanent
companion feature of all factories and outposts on low
G bodies with human workers. Mars has high enough gravity
this will likely be unnecessary. The Moon and nearby bodies
may not have this feature for some time but as settlements
get larger they are certain to appear.
On another topic: I would expect nuclear rockets to play
a pivotal roll in the settling of space. Getting to Mars
is no more time consuming than traveling the oceans of
the Earth given nuclear rockets. Mars has water-ice
ready to be mass driven to wherever needed. The Moon
may have some cometary water at the poles in deep craters
but Mars is certain to have a great deal more. Jupiter's
moons have plenty of water. Nuclear rockets are
clearly the preferred method of human travel to reduce
time in space between protective habitats. Dragging a
protective habitat with you is an extremely inefficient
means of travel. Shipping and time related efficiencies
apply to space as well as they do the Earth. Those who
can deliver the goods quickly at a reduced price will
ensure the commercial success of space. If it makes
sense to have an SST for commercial travel it certainly
makes even more sense to have nuclear rockets in space
travel. Slow intra-solar system travel will greatly
hamper economic progress.
Dennis May
Dennis May wrote,
True. But let's defer until the year 2101 discussions related to the
utilization of Jupiter's moons. Talk to you then.
Dennis May wrote,
"For reasons of efficiency and health these people should spend as much
time as practical under a 1 G environment. Those constructing the orbital
habitats can be shuttled to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth."
I would say that there are many unproven statements there. It could very
well be that humans will do just fine in 1/3g or 1/6g. Or perhaps we'll
learn that exercise plus vibration plus some pill will suffice for living
in 0g permanently. Or maybe not, I really have no idea. What can you
say for certain?
Ron
Monart Pon monart@...
11/13/01 03:12 PM
spacesettlers@...
Fowarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:32:04 -0600
I wrote (11/11):
>Although the Moon and Mars have low
>gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
>perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
>platform, at a greatly reduced cost.
Mike Combs mikecombs@... wrote (11/12):
>Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to
built
>10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?
At some point hundreds of people will be involved
in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
orbital habitat is constructed. For reasons of
efficiency and health these people should spend as
much time as practical under a 1 G environment.
Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth.
Those doing sedentary work in particular should have
offices in rail cars, sleep, and eat while under 1 G.
It is by far cheaper to keep someone traveling in a
circle than to degrade their health and ship people
back and forth to the Earth.
I would expect that circle tracks will be a permanent
companion feature of all factories and outposts on low
G bodies with human workers. Mars has high enough gravity
this will likely be unnecessary. The Moon and nearby bodies
may not have this feature for some time but as settlements
get larger they are certain to appear.
On another topic: I would expect nuclear rockets to play
a pivotal roll in the settling of space. Getting to Mars
is no more time consuming than traveling the oceans of
the Earth given nuclear rockets. Mars has water-ice
ready to be mass driven to wherever needed. The Moon
may have some cometary water at the poles in deep craters
but Mars is certain to have a great deal more. Jupiter's
moons have plenty of water. Nuclear rockets are
clearly the preferred method of human travel to reduce
time in space between protective habitats. Dragging a
protective habitat with you is an extremely inefficient
means of travel. Shipping and time related efficiencies
apply to space as well as they do the Earth. Those who
can deliver the goods quickly at a reduced price will
ensure the commercial success of space. If it makes
sense to have an SST for commercial travel it certainly
makes even more sense to have nuclear rockets in space
travel. Slow intra-solar system travel will greatly
hamper economic progress.
Dennis May
I wrote (11/11):
>gravity, a sleeper car on a circular track can
>perform artificial gravity the same as a spinning
>platform, at a greatly reduced cost.
Mike Combs wrote (11/12):
>Perhaps, but why compare this with orbital habitats? Do you plan to built
>10,000 person permanent settlements on sleeper cars on circular tracks?
At some point hundreds of people will be involved
in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
orbital habitat is constructed. I would disagree with "hundreds" (the NASA-Ames Space Settlement studies assumed a lunar crew of only around a dozen or so supporting the construction of a Stanford Torus), but agree the mining camps will certainly precede the large, orbital habitats. For reasons of
efficiency and health these people should spend as
much time as practical under a 1 G environment. I agree 100%, but what does this have to do with the original objection? I had written that one advantage of an orbital location over a planetary one as a site for permanent settlement was that in orbit we could rotate to simulate whatever gravity is desired, while on planetary surfaces we have to take what we get. You began talking about sleeper cars on circular tracks. Unless one can build habitats on the moon or Mars which spin around on circular tracks and can accommodate 10,000 to 10,000,000 people, then there's no use in arguing with the original point. Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
traveling back to the Earth. Perhaps, but the transportation costs of this would still be significant. This cost could be eliminated entirely by building structures in orbit which rotate for artificial gravity. The transportation costs for shuttling hundreds of people back and forth from the moon could pay for a great deal of space construction. I think thedisconnect here is that you've decided building these circular tracks and wheeled vehicles will for some reason be cheaper than building a structure in space and setting it rotating. I'm not at all convinced this would be the case, provided we're talking comparable capacities. It's true that the Coriolis effect on the inner ear sets certain constraints, but this only sets a minimum value on the rotation axis, not the mass of the structure.The very first "construction shack" needn't necessarily be a sphere or cylinder. It could be a dumbbell shape. It's rotation axis may of necessity be as long as that of Island One, butsuch a structure could be only a small fraction of the mass. It is by far cheaper to keep someone traveling in a
circle than to degrade their health and ship people
back and forth to the Earth. Agreed, but the cheapest option of all is to simulate gravity near the construction site. There's more than one design out there which would accomplish this with discarded Space Shuttle ETs. One needn'tbuild Island One just to provide workers with some spin gravity. I would expect that circle tracks will be a permanent
companion feature of all factories and outposts on low
G bodies with human workers. Mars has high enough gravity
this will likely be unnecessary. We can expect (or hope) that 1/3 G will be sufficient, but we cannot know for sure until we actually perform the experiment. Mars has water-ice
ready to be mass driven to wherever needed. Mars would be a poor choice as a source of needed water. The gravity well is much steeper than that of the moon, and we don't have a vacuum at the surface which means mass driver operations will be problematic. The lunar mass driver proposal was dependent on a unique dynamic characteristic of the Earth-Moon L-2 point. There would be no corresponding point for Mars. Payloads could not be launched into Mars orbit without orbit circularization engines, which would mean the payloads would have to be much more sophisticated, and far larger, than what O'Neill had proposed for the moon. The lunar poles and NEOs would be far better sources of water for space operations. The Moon
may have some cometary water at the poles in deep craters
but Mars is certain to have a great deal more. The undeniable fact that Mars has more may not be relevant if it's far more difficult to get it away from Mars. The lunar ice might well be depleted in a generation or so, but by then we would be more likely to be extracting water from asteroids than exporting out the the steep gravity well of Mars.
Regards,
Mike Combs
In regard to "a sleeper car on a circular track ...", is 1 g while
sleeping useful? Or is standing up with 1 g needed, where there are
mechanical stresses on the bones and hydraulic stressed on the circulatory
systems? We may well learn that humans are diverse and perhaps some group
that we have no way to suspect now will be able to handle low g better than
1 g. Like the Navaho's working "high-steel". My advise is to not start
construction until more is known!
My previous comments on oxygen were too sharp, and I apologize.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
In regard to "a sleeper car on a circular track ...", is 1 g while
sleeping useful? Or is standing up with 1 g needed, where there are
mechanical stresses on the bones and hydraulic stressed on the circulatory
systems? I can tell you this much. Do you know what NASA does when they want to study the debilitating effects of 0-G shortof launching the test subjects into space? They send them to bed.
Mike Combs
Forwarding Dennis May's response to Ryan Healey.
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:15:20 -0600
I wrote (11/11):
>... Big government concerned with immediate day to day functions and the
>next election may eventually allow the private sector to proceed but it
>will always
>be by permission, not by right.
Ryan Healey wrote (11/13):
>The private sector is unlikely to do it on it's own. It will probably take
>a mixture of government and private sector to actually pull off.
>Government to fund some of the initial research and anything that has to be
>done but which won't make a profit with the private sector doing what ever
>makes money. The problem with companies is that if they won't see returns
>after 3 FY they don't bother with it. This is something the free market
>worshipers haven't seemed to get into their heads yet. Without someone to
>do the stuff that takes a long time before any profits can be made the
>private sector won't do anything (those
>companies that do won't be making a profit and will cease to exist).
Ryan confuses a free market with a mixed economy
market. In the mid to late 1800 large corporations
regularly issued bonds with 50, 75, and 100 year
maturities. Long term research projects were commonly
undertaken by large and small industries alike
[Edison and thousands of attempts at the light
bulb]. Wealthy individuals sponsored or helped
promising individuals in risky ventures [Edison
helping Ford with his internal combustion engine
automobile while working on his own electric car].
Private companies and individuals have solved problems
big government could not [the Wright Brothers].
In a free market companies can make long term plans
because the government isn't constantly interfering
with the sources and cost of credit, they aren't
flooded with ever changing regulations, they don't
have to get "permission" every time they make a
business decision, their competitors can't go to
the government for special favors or deals, and
the value of money [measures of wealth] don't
change by government fiat.
The eye toward a three year pay off is precisely
because big government can't be trusted, not the
free market. Who would have felt comfortable
investing in a medical education when Hillary was
attempting to confiscate 1/7th of the U.S. economy.
My 1st cousin did NOT start his own medical practice
and stayed in the military precisely because
of the uncertainty caused by an un-free market.
>I think the first steps towards a future in space
>should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
>and the single stage to orbit space plane programs.
>Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
>small asteroid companion in concert with a
>permanently manned Mars colony. ...
>Nuclear thermal rockets (what most people are talking about when they refer
>to nuclear rockets) are better then chemical rockets but only under
>conditions of
>high payload and mission Delta-v such that the mass of the reactor is less
>then the mass that extra chemical fuel would have been.
Until there is a space infrastructure re-usable nuclear
rockets have the advantage of being able to operate
using a single thermally heated propellant [usually
liquid hydrogen super-heated]. Chemical rocket
propellants will have to be manufactured in space or
hauled from the Earth. The oxidizer [Liquid Oxygen]
is heavy and moving it around is very energy expensive.
Hydrogen [from water] is super-abundant on Jupiter's
moons and to a lesser extent on Mars.
>SSTO [Single Stage to Orbit] is also a good idea
>but might be a bit hard to do. TSTO [Two Stages to
>Orbit] is almost as good and a lot easier to do.
The SSTO was first worked on in 1939 Germany. They
decided to do the V-2 rocket instead. Even two
stages versus single stage greatly complicates
the infrastructure requirements and makes each
trip to orbit a big deal. Single Stage to Orbit
makes it more along the lines of high performance
upper altitude spy planes being fueled up and sent
on their way. Low altitude refueling is no big
deal compared to dropping a single stage.
>Bootstrapping up to space colonies is probably the best way to go as trying
>to build them as the first activity in space would probably cost a bit too
>much (it could probably be done if you use lunar or asteriodal resources
>though but no one is going to pay for it).
See the above discussion concerning long term
bonds in a free market.
>Mars we should leave to the Mars Society and let them run the mission (or
>convince a government to do that).
Mars is part of the big picture, particularly if
drawing from private investment and using the
plentiful resources of Mars enters the scheme of
things. There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years
worth of fuel at minimum. How could long term
private investors ignore a platform ready to house
an industrial machine the size of all the land
on Earth?
Dennis May
Forwarding Dennis May's response to Mike Combs.
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:23:02 -0600
>At some point hundreds of people will be involved
>in mining on the moon and asteroids before an
>orbital habitat is constructed.
>I would disagree with "hundreds" (the NASA-Ames Space Settlement studies
>assumed a lunar crew of only around a dozen or so supporting the
>construction of a Stanford Torus), but agree the mining camps will
>certainly precede the large, orbital habitats.
I assume a Stanford Torus is small and intended to
be pre-built on Earth with the Moon resources
providing only shielding.
The large orbital habitats are quite a different
thing. They will require a real industrial
infrastructure.
I am an engineer at a custom metal fabricating
facility. Several of my relatives have worked in
mining or been engineers in heavy industry.
For real factory type settings they will necessarily
have to have almost daily shipments of spare parts.
Weekly shipments will cause work stoppages, monthly
shipments would likely cause the entire project to
collapse. Once you have mining and fabricating underway
it will still take a large number of people to do the many
other tasks real factory work requires. The Soviets
spent nearly all their time keeping their space stations
repaired much less produce anything with them. Real
world fabricating requires a great deal of down time
for repairs, if spare parts are not instantly available
even more down time is involved. Efficiency suffers
if you don't have the right tool for the right job or
the right repair person for the needed repair. I
would expect a dozen fabricators would be needed just
to keep the mining equipment and vehicles hauling miners
and supplies maintained. You would still need miners,
raw material production workers, finished metal
production workers, metal product fabricators, supply
and ordering specialists, habitat maintenance, supply
receiving, shipping out [launch specialists], repair
and refurbishing of incoming and outgoing space
vehicles, medical/dental, non-metal fabricating and
repair, food production/preparation, waste recycling,
etc. Every time you pull someone off production to do
the twenty other jobs needing to be done you have
stretched the time factor to useful production.
A dozen people may know how to do all the jobs needing
to be done but they do not have the critical mass
necessary to do the work efficiently or in a timely
manner.
>For reasons of efficiency and health these people should spend as much time
>as practical under a 1 G environment.
>Unless one can build habitats on the moon or Mars which spin around on
>circular tracks and can
>accommodate 10,000 to 10,000,000 people, then there's no use in arguing
>with the original point.
How you get from where we are to where you want
to be is very much the point. The huge infrastructure
required for such building projects will mean dealing
with human health issues on a large scale before the
even larger scale becomes possible.
>Those constructing the orbital habitats can be shuttled
>to a Moon base for 1 G time more efficiently than
>traveling back to the Earth.
>Perhaps, but the transportation costs of this would still be significant.
>This cost could be eliminated entirely by building structures in orbit
>which rotate for artificial gravity. The transportation costs for
>shuttling hundreds of
>people back and forth from the moon could pay for a great deal of space
>construction.
A very small shielded habitat can only house
a very small work crew. The kind of habitats
some have envisioned will require work crews
in the hundreds or thousands working for many
years. You would not want this structure
rotating while being constructed.
Until you have produced a large habitat with
sufficient mass for protection from radiation a
rotating habit is only fixing one of two health
problems. A circular track on the moon sheltered
from radiation fixes both problems. Those working
on the habitat during construction will need to go
somewhere to regain health, the infrastructure on
the moon or asteroids will need workers also, so
rotating crews would solve both problems.
>Mars has water-ice ready to be mass driven to wherever needed.
>Mars would be a poor choice as a source of needed water. The gravity well
>is much steeper than that of the moon, and we don't have a vacuum at the
>surface
>which means mass driver operations will be problematic.
Mass drivers or light gas guns can push out projectiles
with ablation noses and steering rockets to put them
into whatever corrected orbits they later require.
Mars has the raw materials, the deep gravity well is
not much of a consideration once a nuclear/electric
infrastructure is built up. The small amount of ice
or water available from the moon means finding the
resources elsewhere shortly after the Moon has an
industrial infrastructure.
I see the entire buildup of space industrialization
as a series of tradeoffs involving lost time versus
up front expenses. The slower the build up the cheaper
it is but the longer it takes. Time is money so
building up slowly involves unseen losses. The
up front money will come slowly unless big government
gets off our backs. Only time will tell how much
we have lost by building up slowly. If the money
isn't coming or isn't reliable a small shielded
near Earth orbit rotating habitat may be the best
we can expect for a long time. If the resources
were available I would rather see an industrial
infrastructure built up on the Moon and Mars
prior to or in parallel with building space habitats.
The free market should decide the priorities and
what is actually built but we are far from a
free market situation.
Dennis May
All good points, however what changes occure with robotices and the use of Lava Tubs? I have been working off and on developeing a lunar excavating unit for several years. It is not as easy as some think.
> I'm forwarding this post from another list for comments, please.
>
> Monart
> Starship Aurora http://www.starshipaurora.com>
>
> * * * * *
>
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:44:18 -0600
>
> Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm>
>
> I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
> bias against nuclear development in space which
> was not explained. I saw discussion concerning
> the benefits of solar power out to a great distance
> from the sun but much of the construction materials
> for large space based habitats past Mars and the
> asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
> from the inner solar system. The vast majority of
> mass in low gravity wells is in the form of cometary
> material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
> rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
> could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.
>
> The problems concerning populations doubling
> every forty years are acknowledged to only be delayed
> by moving into the nearby solar system. In reality
> it does not directly benefit Earth population pressures
> at all [the indirect benefits may be large however].
that millions of people might not be able to travel into
space every year. That would greatly increase the doubling
period. Space elevators may be possible in 50 years time;
but even if they are not, even chemical launch technology
is not impractical. (The Russian Energia launcher could
theoretically launch 500+ people into LEO, including life
support although it is not manrated, you'd have to
increase the size of the payload bay, the mass is within
its capabilities.)
However it isn't clear that the doubling actually occurs
in educated societies. For example, in Italy the population
may actually be shrinking. Education is growing apace.
> There has never been any serious talk of large masses
> of people moving to space in order to relieve the Earth
> of population pressures. The numbers of people you
> would need to move are simply staggering.
Plenty of things are staggering. Doesn't mean they are
impossible though.
> The most you
> can hope for is to establish new off-Earth
> civilizations from a vanishing small seed population
> originating from the Earth. There are more people
> in the rest of the world now then there was before
> European colonization of the Americas. A small
> number of people migrated to the Americas but
> populations continued to grow outside and inside
> of the Americas. Geometric population growth will
> occur in space the same as it does on Earth. After
> a geologically very short time the solar system will
> feel population pressures the same as the Earth
> does now. Long before that happens more seed
> population groups will have moved outside of the
> solar system.
The solar system can keep us going for a long time.
The sun gives us all the energy we can use, and if need be
we can start disassembling planets!
> I think the first steps towards a future in space
> should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
> and the single stage to orbit space plane programs.
> Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
> small asteroid companion in concert with a
> permanently manned Mars colony.
Mars I am agnostic on right now, Phobos and Deimos, NEOs
the moon (although the moon seems to lack carbon and hydrogen
which is awkward.) Any increased rate of launch is a good
thing for any reason.
Nuclear for interplanetary use is a good thing.
>
> > I'm forwarding this post from another list for
> comments, please.
> >
> > Monart
> > Starship Aurora http://www.starshipaurora.com>
> > Starship Forum
> >
> > * * * * *
> >
> FAQ's
> > Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:44:18 -0600
> >
> > Responding to Mike Comb's Space Settlement FAQ
> > http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm>
> >
> > I just had a few comments. I noticed a certain
> > bias against nuclear development in space which
> > was not explained. I saw discussion concerning
> > the benefits of solar power out to a great
> distance
> > from the sun but much of the construction
> materials
> > for large space based habitats past Mars and the
> > asteroid belt would likely have to be imported
> > from the inner solar system. The vast majority of
> > mass in low gravity wells is in the form of
> cometary
> > material well past Pluto. In this region nuclear
> > rockets and nuclear fission/fusion hybrid reactors
> > could turn this vast desert of ice into a garden.
> >
> > The problems concerning populations doubling
> > every forty years are acknowledged to only be
> delayed
> > by moving into the nearby solar system. In
> reality
> > it does not directly benefit Earth population
> pressures
> > at all [the indirect benefits may be large
> however].
>
> That isn't nessarily true. There is no technical
> reason
> that millions of people might not be able to travel
> into
> space every year. That would greatly increase the
> doubling
> period. Space elevators may be possible in 50 years
> time;
> but even if they are not, even chemical launch
> technology
> is not impractical. (The Russian Energia launcher
> could
> theoretically launch 500+ people into LEO, including
> life
> support although it is not manrated, you'd have to
> increase the size of the payload bay, the mass is
> within
> its capabilities.)
>
> However it isn't clear that the doubling actually
> occurs
> in educated societies. For example, in Italy the
> population
> may actually be shrinking. Education is growing
> apace.
>
> > There has never been any serious talk of large
> masses
> > of people moving to space in order to relieve the
> Earth
> > of population pressures. The numbers of people
> you
> > would need to move are simply staggering.
>
> Plenty of things are staggering. Doesn't mean they
> are
> impossible though.
>
> > The most you
> > can hope for is to establish new off-Earth
> > civilizations from a vanishing small seed
> population
> > originating from the Earth. There are more people
> > in the rest of the world now then there was before
> > European colonization of the Americas. A small
> > number of people migrated to the Americas but
> > populations continued to grow outside and inside
> > of the Americas. Geometric population growth will
> > occur in space the same as it does on Earth.
> After
> > a geologically very short time the solar system
> will
> > feel population pressures the same as the Earth
> > does now. Long before that happens more seed
> > population groups will have moved outside of the
> > solar system.
>
> The solar system can keep us going for a long time.
> The sun gives us all the energy we can use, and if
> need be
> we can start disassembling planets!
>
> > I think the first steps towards a future in space
> > should be revitalizing the nuclear rocket program
> > and the single stage to orbit space plane
> programs.
> > Next setting up mining on the Moon and Earth's
> > small asteroid companion in concert with a
> > permanently manned Mars colony.
>
> Mars I am agnostic on right now, Phobos and Deimos,
> NEOs
> the moon (although the moon seems to lack carbon and
> hydrogen
> which is awkward.) Any increased rate of launch is a
> good
> thing for any reason.
>
> Nuclear for interplanetary use is a good thing.
>
> > This combination
> > will establish a permanent technological
> infrastructure
> > which can build up indefinitely from there
> including
> > free-floating space structures if seen as
> economical
> > in light of industrial developments.
> >
> > Dennis May
> >
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an
> expanding
> technological civilization?"
> - Gerard O'Neill
>
< do you think the time is right for smaller personal
rockets. why carry so much weight trying to get into
space. dangerous for sure.
More from Dennis May, responding to Mike Combs.
~ * ~
Starship Aurora http://www.starshipaurora.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:55:39 -0600
Mike Combs wrote (11/15):
> ...the recommendations of the
> NASA-Ames/Stanford Summer Study Group. They assumed the metal and glass
> structure of the habitat as well must come from space-derived resources
> to be economical. For myself, I'd have to say that building such a torus
> at even 1/2 or 1/3 of the scale but entirely from Earth-boosted components
> doesn't sound very likely to me, even if the shielding did come from space
> resources (but granted, that's the lion's share of the total mass).
I don't doubt that a dozen men could build
such a structure and I don't doubt that
a Study Group found it feasible to do so.
I do however doubt that it is economically
sound to wait the many years it will take
for such a small crew to pull off such a
task. I work with a group of fabricators
who are more qualified to do such work than
any existing astronauts. They could do it
but NASA has a history of underestimating
costs and time frames by hundreds if not
thousands of percent. They may envision
the project taking a few years, I would say
a few decades is more likely. Underfunding
and underestimates drive prices even higher,
cause inefficiencies, loss of moral, loss of
support, and worst of all huge unseen time
related losses.
The first habitat built will require
re-building or replacement before the puny
infrastructure could produce a second one.
The huge number of re-supply missions for
such a puny payback in infrastructure does
not adequately address long term needs.
Economies of scale apply to space as they
do anywhere.
> A circular track on the moon sheltered
> from radiation fixes both problems.
> Again, you seem to proceed from the idea that this circular track and
> large, high-speed vehicle is going to be easier to construct than a small,
> rotating, shielded habitat in orbit. Both construction programs would take
> place in vacuum, and well away from the Earth. I don't see
> the lunar track being all that much cheaper. Once a small habitat is set
> rotating in orbit, it basically will rotate forever.
It comes back to a disagreement over the
critical mass of people required to create
an industrial infrastructure in space. I
see it taking 10-20 times more people than
the estimates of NASA think tanks. I would
have to see a prototype materials production
factory function for an entire production
run of creating such a habitat before I would
believe their estimates. Then after they
produce one run I would double the actual
required time to take into account problems
not encountered in the first run done under
ideal laboratory conditions.
I cannot emphasize enough that time is as
critical a component in economic calculations
as is upfront money. A well thought out
initial Moon infrastructure will make
everything done afterward function much
faster and much more efficiently.
> And if there were no such thing as CC type NEOs, I'd agree that Mars would
> be next.
I'm sure they will be of great value but
the time issue involved in developing them
for mining should be a large consideration.
I would expect investors will see Mars
as further but having larger long term
promise. Until the first CC type NEO is
mined they will remain largely a question
mark regarding how efficiently and
economically it can be done.
B.T.W. I created a work of art in 1984
showing the mining of a CC type NEO.
It was part of a college class. I want
them mined but I am not convinced they
would be the most logical place to look
for resources at the beginning of
an expanding infrastructure.
Dennis May
More from Dennis May, responding to Ron Healey.
~ * ~
Starship Aurora http://www.starshipaurora.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:35:56 -0600
Ryan Healey wrote (11/15):
> There were also many problems created by the free market. For example the
> Great Depression...Keynesian theory. Interestingly, the free market
> caused the great depression then government got out of it. Getting rid of
> the gold standard was what allowed the world to get out of the depression...
I gather you are a Keynesian socialist.
Your view of what a free market is and
what brought about the Great Depression
is considerably different than the
view held by those who support a free
market. Keynesian theory has been
discredited in academia but remains
influential in big government circles.
I suggest you find a copy of "Gold and
Freedom" by Richard M. Salsman. Except
during the "War Between the States"
time period the United States had 75 years
of uninterrupted growth while on a gold
standard. The bubbles of instability
during this time of unparalleled growth
were directly traceable to States
interfering with inter-state banking.
Later on big government interfered with
the economy creating arbitrary anti-trust
regulations followed by the income tax
and credit policies entirely disconnected
from production. This free flowing credit
from nowhere caused a boom borne of
mal-investment followed by a bust known as
the Great Depression. Further intervention
prolonged and deepened the Depression.
Investors slowly returned to the market
after the confiscation of accumulated
wealth slowed and onerous illegal legislation
and directives were thrown out or blocked by
the Supreme Court. The return to legal
stability once again allowed investors to
plan ahead. The prevention of FDR packing
the Supreme Court was an important turning
point.
> Only a monopoly or a company with external support can continue with an
> unprofitable project for more then 3 years and still exist.
Profitable companies invest part of their
profits into growth prospects for the
future. There is nothing difficult to
understand about this. Some companies
look 25 or more years ahead even in this
mixed economy. In a free economy companies
can plan even further ahead as they did
in the 1885 time frame.
> When government is a monopoly at least those living under them have a
> choice but when corporations are a monopoly almost no one gets a choice
> (competition has to be significant).
When government is a monopoly you have a choice?
I don't hardly think so. They also have the
option of deadly force to back up their monopoly,
i.e. their legal tender system.
> If you want to know what happens when a free market is implemented I
> suggest you go to Chile and have a look around.
Chile has always had a less free market than the
United States and a number of other nations.
Their one bright moment has been some privatization
of industry and partial privatization of their
version of Social Security all while being attacked
by communist guerilla insurgents. A free market
includes many factors. Chile is still a mixed
economy at best.
> There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
> fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years worth of fuel at
> minimum.
>Will we even manage to get fusion beyond breakeven?
Hybrid fission/fusion reactors and breeder reactors
are used in concert. The theory was worked out by Edward
Teller and company more than ten years ago. Break
even is assured, technological implementation is the
only real question. There are no roadblocks or
unknown plasma instability problems like in present
fusion only programs.
Dennis May
I don't doubt that a dozen men could build
such a structure and I don't doubt that
a Study Group found it feasible to do so. I'm sure the Ames study assumed several hundred workers. They may envision
the project taking a few years, I would say
a few decades is more likely. The Ames study said 22 years. I'm sure 30 is closer to the mark. I'm sure they(NEOs)will be of great value but
the time issue involved in developing them
for mining should be a large consideration. But why assume development of Martian mining would occur quicker? I would expect investors will see Mars
as further but having larger long term
promise. What investors are going to be looking at is the magnitude of the investment. The magnitude of the investment will vary with the delta-V involved. The delta-V from the surface of Mars to free space will always be greater than the delta-V from the surface of an asteroid into free space. The only conceivable reason for saying Mars trumps asteroidssince there's a greater amount of total available mass is if there's reason to think we'll completely exhaust the resources of all NEOs in the near term. Personally, I don't think such exhaustion will happen forquite a fewgenerations. Until the first CC type NEO is
mined they will remain largely a question
mark regarding how efficiently and
economically it can be done. But why isn't the mining of Mars considered an equally big question mark? We've never tried that before either. B.T.W. I created a work of art in 1984
showing the mining of a CC type NEO.
It was part of a college class. I want
them mined but I am not convinced they
would be the most logical place to look
for resources at the beginning of
an expanding infrastructure. There are many who would disagree. We must be cautious about allowing planetary chauvinism to influence our thinking.
Mike Combs
Sorry, I meant "Ryan Healey".
Monart
Monart
~ * ~
Starship Aurora http://www.starshipaurora.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:35:56 -0600
Ryan Healey wrote (11/15):
> There were also many problems created by the free market. For example the
> Great Depression...Keynesian theory. Interestingly, the free market
> caused the great depression then government got out of it. Getting rid of
> the gold standard was what allowed the world to get out of the depression...
I gather you are a Keynesian socialist.
Your view of what a free market is and
what brought about the Great Depression
is considerably different than the
view held by those who support a free
market. Keynesian theory has been
discredited in academia but remains
influential in big government circles.
I suggest you find a copy of "Gold and
Freedom" by Richard M. Salsman. Except
during the "War Between the States"
time period the United States had 75 years
of uninterrupted growth while on a gold
standard. The bubbles of instability
during this time of unparalleled growth
were directly traceable to States
interfering with inter-state banking.
Later on big government interfered with
the economy creating arbitrary anti-trust
regulations followed by the income tax
and credit policies entirely disconnected
from production. This free flowing credit
from nowhere caused a boom borne of
mal-investment followed by a bust known as
the Great Depression. Further intervention
prolonged and deepened the Depression.
Investors slowly returned to the market
after the confiscation of accumulated
wealth slowed and onerous illegal legislation
and directives were thrown out or blocked by
the Supreme Court. The return to legal
stability once again allowed investors to
plan ahead. The prevention of FDR packing
the Supreme Court was an important turning
point.
> Only a monopoly or a company with external support can continue with an
> unprofitable project for more then 3 years and still exist.
Profitable companies invest part of their
profits into growth prospects for the
future. There is nothing difficult to
understand about this. Some companies
look 25 or more years ahead even in this
mixed economy. In a free economy companies
can plan even further ahead as they did
in the 1885 time frame.
> When government is a monopoly at least those living under them have a
> choice but when corporations are a monopoly almost no one gets a choice
> (competition has to be significant).
When government is a monopoly you have a choice?
I don't hardly think so. They also have the
option of deadly force to back up their monopoly,
i.e. their legal tender system.
> If you want to know what happens when a free market is implemented I
> suggest you go to Chile and have a look around.
Chile has always had a less free market than the
United States and a number of other nations.
Their one bright moment has been some privatization
of industry and partial privatization of their
version of Social Security all while being attacked
by communist guerilla insurgents. A free market
includes many factors. Chile is still a mixed
economy at best.
> There is plenty of fuel for hybrid
> fission/fusion reactors on Mars, billions of years worth of fuel at
> minimum.
>Will we even manage to get fusion beyond breakeven?
Hybrid fission/fusion reactors and breeder reactors
are used in concert. The theory was worked out by Edward
Teller and company more than ten years ago. Break
even is assured, technological implementation is the
only real question. There are no roadblocks or
unknown plasma instability problems like in present
fusion only programs.
Dennis May
> do you think the time is right for smaller personal
> rockets.
> why carry so much weight trying to get into
> space. dangerous for sure.
I don't think that bigger rockets are dangerous, if anything they
are safer- similar to the way that large planes are safer than
smaller- they tend to have multiple engines for example and can
survive failure of one or more; they are blown around less by
atmospherics etc. etc.
Also, there is a subtle point here- big launchers are often cheaper
than small ones. (If that isn't obvious, then ask the question why
were they built if they weren't cheaper?) They come with built-in
economies of scale if sensibly designed and specified.
>
> > do you think the time is right for smaller
> personal
> > rockets.
>
> Is now the time for smaller personal aeroplanes?
>
> > why carry so much weight trying to get into
> > space. dangerous for sure.
>
> I don't think that bigger rockets are dangerous, if
> anything they
> are safer- similar to the way that large planes are
> safer than
> smaller- they tend to have multiple engines for
> example and can
> survive failure of one or more; they are blown
> around less by
> atmospherics etc. etc.
>
> Also, there is a subtle point here- big launchers
> are often cheaper
> than small ones. (If that isn't obvious, then ask
> the question why
> were they built if they weren't cheaper?) They come
> with built-in
> economies of scale if sensibly designed and
> specified.
>
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an
> expanding
> technological civilization?"
> - Gerard O'Neill
>
< You are probally right, Iam just saying that its
time for all different space vechicles. maybe a scaled
down version of the shuttle. Now it cost around 450
million to launch a shuttle. When big brother wants to
play. from the beachcop51503.