The enthusiasm to develop space as represented by the goals of this
group (SSI) is invigorating but, to be taken seriously, the visions
must be tempered with a reasoned approach as to how these goals may
(just possibly?) be achieved.
I don't want to dampen anyone's enthusiasm but it must surely
be
obvious that space colonies and SPS will not eventuate until a
cheaper and more acceptable method is found to get large structures
built in space, bit by bit if necessary.
I am dedicated to a space solution but if we are to make progress
toward establishing SPSs and space colonies we must counter the
arguments claiming that the cost of reaching space and establishing
these facilities is 50x-100x higher than establishing alternatives on
the ground. The solution is to first develop cheaper methods of
reaching space.
The present estimates and negative reports are all based on rockets
as the only way to reach space but as most members will know, there
is already proven alternative in beamed energy that, virtually
unfunded, is sitting, waiting to be developed.
According to MSFC, NASA's own publicity arm:
Beamed-energy propulsion systems are "the most promising
technology
to lower transportation costs to tens of dollars per pound".
Potential energy sources include "the sun, a ground- or
space-based
laser or microwave transmitter."
Marshall Space Flight Centre (MSFC), Aug 2000.
Beamed energy is precisely the technology to be used by SPSs. Develop
one and you have the technology for the other. If BE-Propulsion is
developed first, the cost of putting an SPS into space will be
reduced up to 1000x. What's more, it can quite reasonably be done
in
stages. It is `simply' a matter of putting the cart before
the horse.
To develop a SPS we must first develop BEP from the ground,
preferably with masers and/or solar, or even x-rays, for unmanned
craft (using Quantum Nucleonic Reactors QNR). Lasers are great for
extreme range but are otherwise the weakest option (the use of lasers
I'll happily debate later).
It is acknowledged that lasers (and/or masers) could put a payload
into space. However, it is argued that the max payload would be
around 500kg, making it of dubious value. Frankly, for a number of
reasons, I believe the claimed limitation is total %^!@...
the by-product of holy cows living on the fat of the land and eating
too much green grass.
Rationally, if beamed energy is focussed into a suitably charged
reaction chamber (from below) from widely separated sources, where
else can the explosion take place but in that chamber or immediately
beneath it? Basically, if combustion chambers can be developed to
survive the temperatures of the Lightcraft (6,000K-30000K) then the
energy can be delivered. Cooling with a suitable reactant (water?)
suggests itself.
A number of other options for saving a high percentage of launch
energy are (apparently) totally ignored, even solution that could be
adapted to rockets. It all starts looking like a conspiracy but in
reality, is probably just lack of vision and totally self-serving
bureaucratic opportunism. However, there is little sense in spending
up to a $M150 for just one mission of dubious value to change the
crew servicing the ISS and yet spend only $100,000pa in research into
Lightcraft (and other alternatives) to develop a cleaner, better way
of doing business.
NASA's priorities are totally a-about face but pressure from
groups
like SSI could make a difference, provided the solutions they offer
can be seen as realistic.
There are many options and beamed energy could play a major role
toward absolutely massive savings in launch costs. Supplying the
energy from the ground is really the only way to go. If it cannot be
made to work, then we cannot make into space without virtually
destroying our planet.
> I am dedicated to a space solution but if we are to make progress
> toward establishing SPSs and space colonies we must counter the
> arguments claiming that the cost of reaching space and establishing
> these facilities is 50x-100x higher than establishing alternatives on
> the ground. The solution is to first develop cheaper methods of
> reaching space.
moon rather than Earth, costs may be somewhat less, especially if the moon
base is automated.
> The present estimates and negative reports are all based on rockets
> as the only way to reach space but as most members will know, there
> is already proven alternative in beamed energy that, virtually
> unfunded, is sitting, waiting to be developed.
Didn't I mention this last week?
> I am dedicated to a space solution but if we are to make progress
> toward establishing SPSs and space colonies we must counter the
> arguments claiming that the cost of reaching space and establishing
> these facilities is 50x-100x higher than establishing alternatives on
> the ground. The solution is to first develop cheaper methods of
> reaching space.
http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/CatsPrize/
various legislative pushes (where I think Rick Tumlinson goes astray)
http://www.ricktumlinson.com/sections/appearances/House_3_95.html
and at least a couple of billionaires (including Jeff Bezos of
Amazon.com) putting a lot of money into this (perhaps as businesses, but
essentially still billionaire hobbies).While I wish them well, I think
this approach towards space settlement is misguided. Let's work the
numbers.
The USA has about two million millionaires. There are many more elsewhere.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0711_030711_money.html
"In total, there are an estimated 7.3 million people in the world whose
assetsexcluding their homeamount to U.S. $1 million or more. Behind
Europe, North America has the second highest concentration of
millionaires at 2.2 million. The Asia Pacific region accounts for 1.8
million. Latin America and the Middle East account for 300,000 each, and
Africa accounts for 100,000."
At current launch costs of $10000 per pound, to put a 150 pound adult
(me on a starvation diet for a couple months!) would be about
$1,500,000, or $6,000,000 for a family of four. Now that amount of money
being paid is well within the reach of hundreds of thousands of people
if they liquidate all their assets -- homes, stocks, retirement
accounts, and so forth. Now if you could guarantee that they and their
children would have a better life living in cities in space, then some
percentage of them might well do that. The problem as I see it is, we
can't guarantee that right now. The other problem is of course, there is
no place to live right now for hundreds of thousands of people showing
up in their underwear and starving with no shelter or clothes or food or
air or water or other goods for them.
One solution is to pursue the 1980s NASA vision of first putting
automated factories on the moon (or at asteroids) and using robotics
(and teleoperation() make space settlements complete with food, water,
clothes, etc. for when these people show up. It would in theory only
take one Apollo-type launch to the Moon with the seed of an automated
factory instead of a LEM to start the process rolling, and that would
have an up front cost of a few billion dollars or so -- far less than
the total launch costs for all the people. The factory could also carry
out putting up mass drivers etc. to realize Gerry's vision of building
near earth habitats from lunar resources.
So, as I see it, launch costs are not a bottleneck. What is a bottle
neck is we do not know how to make that seed self-replicating factory,
or have plans for what it should create once it is landed on the moon or
on a near-earth asteroid.
So that is why I think billionaires like Jeff Bezos spending money on
CATS is a tragedy -- they should IMHO be spending their money on DOGS
instead (Design of Great Settlements). But the designs can be done more
slowly without much money using volunteers and networked personal
computers -- that was the point of my SSI paper:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html
Disclaimer: I don't think the best way to settle space is to only put
rich people there; the analysis is more for sake of argument then
anything else; I think with improved materials science and volunteer
efforts, reduced launch costs by a factor of ten will happen almost
inevitably down the road. And even if not, an automated space based
infrastructure could send laser launch vehicles down to earth and beam
energy for then to use to launch people at no cost -- a good use of SPSS
in my opinion. But once again this goes to show how the bootstrapping
approach differs from the Earth infrastrucutre approach.
--Paul Fernhout
> ...What is a bottle
> neck is we do not know how to make that seed self-replicating factory,
> or have plans for what it should create once it is landed on the moon or
> on a near-earth asteroid.
mining, and manufacturing equipment. It's going to need a good bit of time to
get the whole operation ramped up that way. If it's made versatile enough,
whether the moonbase builds a mass driver system to deliver components to L5
for a space station, or a moon base for human habitation, or a radio telescope
for astronomy can be decided later.
i belive that the goals are not clear at the moment.
We need affordable access to space, that's one of the
bsic conditions for space development.
Affordable means , from my point of view the
following:
1-a completely reusable space commuter vehicle
2-a commercial airline type of land operation
3-a two stage horizontal take off and landing vehicle
4-first stage booster unmanned, with a mix turbo and
ramjet propulsion system will put orbiter in optimal
position for final push to orbit
5-booster to land at take off airport after orbiter
separation
6-orbiter manned , to reach orbit and perform its
mission
7-orbiter to land at same take off airport
Such a vehicle, which I call a space commuter is the
only reasonable alternative with present technology.
CEV is a step 50 years back, when you had to mobilize
to fleet for every landing or splashdown.
i can't believe that the lesson of the space shuttle
is completely forgotten and we are going back to
primitive solutions that are clearly dead end.
This will not lead us to the moon or Mars but we will
waste decades and money as it happened before.
We will not see space colonization nor settlememts in
our lifetime
Second technology needed is ADS
asteroid deflection system to deflect small,
100000tons water rich asteroids in cycler orbits to
Moon or Mars equip them and use them as transportation
system with hotel function during the travel
These asteroids , properly equipped with an
extraterrestrial construction system station
construction will represent the embryo of a space
colony and at the same time will generate profit to
its developers by supplying transporation to most
desired destinations.
Such embryo colonies will further develop by utilising
the materials of the deflected asteroid and by
generating income and will grow with time.
Any other space colony system , is not feasible, since
will not generate any income, nor initially nor later
on.
Since profit is the main motivation for private
enterprise this is the recommended road.
> ...What is a bottle
> neck is we do not know how to make that seed
self-replicating factory,
> or have plans for what it should create once it is
landed on the moon or
> on a near-earth asteroid.
It probably doesn't need, at first, any more than how
to build more power,
mining, and manufacturing equipment. It's going to
need a good bit of time to
get the whole operation ramped up that way. If it's
made versatile enough,
whether the moonbase builds a mass driver system to
deliver components to L5
for a space station, or a moon base for human
habitation, or a radio telescope
for astronomy can be decided later.
protection around
> i belive that the goals are not clear at the moment.
> We need affordable access to space, that's one of the
> bsic conditions for space development.
> Affordable means , from my point of view the
> following:
'affordable', stripped of favored technology, means no more than
"someone, somewhere, is willing to pay the price for X".
I know this is elementary for most of the people posting here but I
(sometimes, and not often here) on space-themed mailing lists see a bias
tword "what I think is needed" not what may actually work.
Practicality and an open mind will get us there, comrades.
Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
to agree on the goal and the potential system is
already a step forward.
Who can do this?
We can at least propose what we believe make sense,
develop it since there is enough brainpower in this
forum to push for logical ideas. O'Neill pushed the
envelope of space colonization by making advanced
proposals
we can do the same
Who will pay for it?
Whoever private or public organization who may see an
advantage and a benefit from our ideas.
Wishful thinking?
I am an optimist.
I believe that even if our only weapon are our ideas
we must fight for them
is never wasted time, if not we wouldn't be here.
> We need affordable access to space, that's one of
the
> bsic conditions for space development.
> Affordable means , from my point of view the
> following:
I agree with most of what you say, but I hasten to
point out that
'affordable', stripped of favored technology, means no
more than
"someone, somewhere, is willing to pay the price for
X".
I know this is elementary for most of the people
posting here but I
(sometimes, and not often here) on space-themed
mailing lists see a bias
tword "what I think is needed" not what may actually
work.
Practicality and an open mind will get us there,
comrades.
Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also
drive a rivet.
~Lileks