According to the O'Neill, model, Colonies will have as a major goal
that of self-replication.
organize to promote the idea that sweat-equity shareholder-workers
[think ESOP]together with compatible earthside investors should from
the beginning demand the right and the goal to eventually lease, then
buy, obsolete [or, alternatively, newer, dedicated-to-the-purpose]
habitats, which would be sub-let specifically to 'pioneer' settler and
tourism interests.
During the leasing phase, "the company" would continue to make a
profit from colony business that has little to do with their primary
engineering and other space-tech business model expertise.
The first colonies would get their business building colonies?
I always thought that the primary function of an economically feasible
space colony would be the construction of large-scale space projects
of all kinds.
The first colonies would get their business building colonies?
I always thought that the primary function of an economically feasible
space colony would be the construction of large-scale space projects
of all kinds.
Personally, I'd put resource extraction ahead of manufacturing.
2> Asteroid wrangling for platinum group metals, or possibly He3
3> Comet wrangling for volatiles
I would expect that only excess capacity would be used for building
new colony components.
> What's wrong with a good pyramid scheme? It's only unethical if, somewhere
> along the way, you don't have the ability to deliver the promised goods. I
> wonder what the economics are of having an in-space manufacturing work
> force; I would bet they are good.
>
> Of Fred
>
> The first colonies would get their business building colonies?
>
> That sounds like something of a pyramid scheme, does it not?
>
> I always thought that the primary function of an economically feasible
> space colony would be the construction of large-scale space projects
> of all kinds.
>
> > According to the O'Neill, model, Colonies will have as a major goal
> > that of self-replication.
>
Remember, money is power:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/05/news/class.php
I think this is the correct way to view this: Firstly, we can all agree that building orbital habitats to build orbital habitats is begging the question. It's the same circular logic (and fatal flaw) in the Mars settlement promoter's scenario; that we're going to build settlements on Mars because we're going to economically develop Mars which we'll need to do to support all those settlers coming to Mars. The infrastructure to mine the moon and/or NEAs, transport ores to HEO, refine ores to pure elements, and fabricate components will initially be built up in support of SPS. At the beginning,workers will live in spartan quarters comparable to those on off-shore oil-drilling platforms. Frequent crew rotations to Earth are necessary, but expensive. The first space habitat will be built largely to house space construction workers and their immediate families. These space workers will, for the most part, stillbe building SPS. Once the first habitat is built, a second one can be built for around an order of magnitude smaller investment. Bring that down by another order of magnitude, and one might sensibly start talking about building habitats for sale toimmigrants from Earth and making a profit at it. SPS expands to the point where it's a significant (perhaps the most significant) contributor to new electrical generation capability. However, a few decades down the road, SPS manufacture begins to ramp down as capacity approaches demand. On the other hand, the demand for additional habitats for space settlers continues to climb, as manufacturing costs decline due to economies of scale, andthe market moves from the well-moneyed variety of clientele to a much broader market of peoplewho may wantto leave Earth as much for political reasons as for the superiorliving conditions. Past a point, space construction workers find themselves spending more time building new habitats than new SPS. From that point forward, habitat replication becomes the primary activity of orbital habitats.
Mike Combs
Personally, I'd put resource extraction ahead of manufacturing.
1> Solar satellites
2> Asteroid wrangling for platinum group metals, or possibly He3
3> Comet wrangling for volatiles
I would expect that only excess capacity would be used for building
new colony components.
>Re: [ssi_list] Re Digest 1105 Msg 7
discussion did not get back to me.
>According to the O'Neill, model, Colonies will have as a major goal
>that of self-replication.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with docking able
lander and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal ore
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
Models of development on earth parallel your thinking.
When ARAMCO began developing resources in Arabia, they
initially built construction camps, with the barest
necessities required for survival, expanded that to
airconditioned prefabs and eventually built whole
towns with bowling alleys, libraries, restraunts, etc.
to provide for families and a lot less rotation back
to earth, er, I mean the States. Indigenous people
were essentially useless for much more than herding
sheep, donkeys and camels, they couldn't be dragooned
into service as the king forbade that and we'd grown
beyond slaves. Might as well have been on the moon,
for all the good local tribes did but the supply lines
were a bit shorter, only took a week to fly back to
the States in 1947. Now days, entire cities are built
just because the king can afford it.
>
> >Re: [ssi_list] Re Digest 1105 Msg 7
>
> Why is it, that I did not get this digest? It Seems that part of the
> discussion did not get back to me.
>
When you joined this discussion group you were offered a choice of how
our messages would be packaged:
hits the send button.
2.) Access each message via the webpage and receive no e-mails at all.
The webpage archives all of the messages forever and they are always
accessable.
3.) Receive the messages, via e-mail, once a week or so, all bundled
together in one digest-like e-mail.
You didn't miss anything :)
TangoMan
> I think this is the correct way to view this:
> orbital habitats is begging the question. It's the same circular
> logic (and fatal flaw) in the Mars settlement promoter's scenario;
> that we're going to build settlements on Mars because we're going
to > economically develop Mars which we'll need to do to support all
those > settlers coming to Mars.
I never bought O'Neill's comments about the "habitat building" phase
for it rings too close to the Mars scenario you wrote above.
Building orbital land area for people to move to, without an economic
reason for them to want to build land area in orbit just doesn't make
sense.
Think of it this way: Whichever group builds the first Habitat will
have control over an impressive array of productive assets already in
orbit. They will have a workforce/population experienced at what they
do, and business models/contracts that are already established.
So they build another habitat with some of their spare capacity and
sell it to another country. Now we're at the Mars scenario. The
country sends up settlers and they are going to orbit to do what? They
have no prodcutive assets with which to generate trade income with
Earth/mother country. On the flip side, why after making the long,
painful, high barrier to entry, slog via bootstrapping to establishing
orbital commerce and civilization will the original group just hand
over the keys to the kingdom to another group thus lowering the
barriers to entry for the new group? That new group, now that they
have a nice Habitat to live in have a much easier task to either buy
raw materials and process them or go out and establish their own
mining/retreival operations and the end result is downward competitive
pressure on the principal industry that supplies foreign exchange for
orbital civilization and that allows them to maintain a semblence of
balance of payments that facilitate the importation of the multitude
of goods that can't be sourced in orbit.
It wouldn't surprise me if this Habitat building model would lead to a
real estate bubble phenomena where Habitats are built and paid for,
new settlers move up, the increased productive capacity crashes prices
for export goods resulting in less demand for people in orbit and a
surplus of Habitat land as people move back to greener economic
pastures on Earth and Habitat construction ceases altogether until the
inventory of orbital real estate clears.
More likely, I think, is that growth would follow an organic path,
mostly, but not entirely, driven by yet unrealized economic demand.
The Habitat growth cycle would remain under the auspices of the
original construction group so as not to slit their own throats by
enabling their competitors to more cheaply, or efficiently, set up
their own orbital supply chain. In this regard, Habitat growth would
always be preceded by demand and would not be entirely speculative as
the "Mars Scenario."
Frankly, if I was in charge, there's no way I'd build a Habitat and
sell it to another group thereby lowering the barriers to entry for
the new settlers to establish material supply chains, and
manufacturing centers by not having to claw their way up the gravity
well and bootstrap themselves up the infrastructure ladder. I'd rather
use those resources to grow the potential of my own group and let the
settlers profit instead.
Lastly, perhaps it would help to think of it this way. Microsoft
builds Windows XP. Leave aside the facts that early in the story they
bought DOS and let's just assume that they built the code entirely on
their own, line by line. They bootstrapped up to Windows XP. Now they
get to sell their product and their competitors have to go through the
same grueling process if they want to enter the OS market. Now, kick
in the "Mars Scenario" and Microsoft can make easy money by selling
the actual Windows XP code to competitors so that they don't have to
start from scratch. After a time, there would be a whole slew of
competitors to Windows XP that are indistinguishable from the
original. What would this do to Microsoft's long term potential? Sure,
they'd have to compete for business, which many of us would like, but
why would Microsoft willing kill the golden goose? To reinvigorate a
stagnant culture by going on a diet of bread and water?
TangoMan
reason for them to want to build land area in orbit just doesn't make
sense. I may not have made myself completely clear. I certainly agree with you that not just the first habitat, and not even just the first generation of habitats, but the first _several generations_ of habitats will be getting built for people to move to because they have a job to do in space. I certainly foresee the find of "organic path" you mention. But long-term, I think given the perfect weather and other superior living conditions associated with orbital habitat living, combined with the simple appeal of the nature of it, I think one might transition to a market of Bill Gates-types who want to live in the heavens. As narrow a market as that would be, it would still be a much broader one than that of space construction workers and their immediate families. Then if costs can be brought down yet another order of magnitude, one can move to a much broader market. At that point, people are immigrating not because they already have a job in orbit, but maybe because they don't feel they can be as politically free in their country of origin as they can in their own new societies in space which they've created for themselves (and can at least find a way to make a living once there).
Mike Combs
Amen Tangoman! Any discussion I have about people settling space usually dies in when it gets compared to anything Earthside. Want to live under the ocean - its cheap by comparison. Want to live in Greenland or Antarctica - its pretty cheap as well. Want to live in space - well that is more expensive than a penthouse in Trump tower downtown New York. I don't see where anyone is going to be handing those out anytime soon. The one thing you can't get a decent comparison to on earth is power generation. Wind, Terrestrial solar, etc doesn't get you anywhere near what the world population currently uses in the forms of burning fossil carbon or nuclear material. Once the joyride is over you will have to go into space just to stay equal with todays energy production. In reality some conservation will kick in and people will forgo bigger houses, bigger cars, airfreight vegetables, etc simply because they cost to much. That means the path to settlement is AFTER you have satified the thrist of the people on earth for energy and in doing so have beaten the launch and space habitat costs down to something that a middle class person could afford. You've got a red hot market for electricity right now around the world so this is not so to-be-thought of export between space settlements and Earth. Or if you wish to save on launch costs there is always Malibu... Cheers, Thor
> Firstly, we can all agree that building orbital habitats to build orbital habitats is begging the question. It's the same circularlogic (and fatal flaw) in the Mars settlement promoter's scenario;
> that we're going to build settlements on Mars because we're goingt to economically develop Mars which we'll need to do to support all those > settlers coming to Mars.
I never bought O'Neill's comments about the "habitat building" phase for it rings too close to the Mars scenario you wrote above.
Building orbital land area for people to move to, without an economic reason for them to want to build land area in orbit just doesn't make sense.
Think of it this way: Whichever group builds the first Habitat will have control over an impressive array of productive assets already in
orbit. They will have a workforce/population experienced at what they do, and business models/contracts that are already established.
So they build another habitat with some of their spare capacity and sell it to another country. Now we're at the Mars scenario. The country sends up settlers and they are going to orbit to do what? They
have no prodcutive assets with which to generate trade income with Earth/mother country. On the flip side, why after making the long, painful, high barrier to entry, slog via bootstrapping to establishing orbital commerce and civilization will the original group just hand
over the keys to the kingdom to another group thus lowering the barriers to entry for the new group? That new group, now that they have a nice Habitat to live in have a much easier task to either buy raw materials and process them or go out and establish their own mining/retreival operations and the end result is downward competitive
pressure on the principal industry that supplies foreign exchange for orbital civilization and that allows them to maintain a semblence of balance of payments that facilitate the importation of the multitude of goods that can't be sourced in orbit.
It wouldn't surprise me if this Habitat building model would lead to a real estate bubble phenomena where Habitats are built and paid for, new settlers move up, the increased productive capacity crashes prices for export goods resulting in less demand for people in orbit and a surplus of Habitat land as people move back to greener economic
pastures on Earth and Habitat construction ceases altogether until the inventory of orbital real estate clears.
More likely, I think, is that growth would follow an organic path, mostly, but not entirely, driven by yet unrealized economic demand. The Habitat growth cycle would remain under the auspices of the original construction group so as not to slit their own throats by enabling their competitors to more cheaply, or efficiently, set up their own orbital supply chain. In this regard, Habitat growth would always be preceded by demand and would not be entirely speculative as
the "Mars Scenario."
Frankly, if I was in charge, there's no way I'd build a Habitat and sell it to another group thereby lowering the barriers to entry for the new settlers to establish material supply chains, and manufacturing centers by not having to claw their way up the gravity well and bootstrap themselves up the infrastructure ladder. I'd rather
use those resources to grow the potential of my own group and let the settlers profit instead.
TangoMan
to build a space settlement to start with there must
be a strong economic reason and a profit generated
activity from the settlement to justify any type of
expense made by earth institutions.
Once a settlement is established and has a local
economy that will justify its existence expansion of
the first habitat is more probable, economic and
feasible than to build an entirely new one.
Like cities on earth the habitats must be designed and
built with flexibility and expansion capability in
mind so they can grow in a step by step process in
accordance with their functional requirements.
Let also keep in mind that the society that will
master space settlement construction will be far
advanced than the existing, they will utilize robots
for most construction and manufacturing activities,
will use new materials and processes with nanotech
improvements, will be composed by humans with enhanced
capabilities, mental and physical, including much
longer life spans than now.
In that scenario is very difficult to predit easons
and motivations for people to go there unless such
society realizes that human destiny is to move away
from its native planet to assure future survival and
unlimited expansion.
Probably extraterrestrial advanced civilizations have
already left their planet of origin and has built
space settlements in other planetary systems and are
or have alraedy expanded in interstellar space in a
pattern similar to Kardashev's society classification
--- "Combs, Mike" mikecombs@... ha scritto:
> to build a space settlement to start with there must
> be a strong economic reason and a profit generated
> activity from the settlement to justify any type of
> expense made by earth institutions.
> Once a settlement is established and has a local
> economy that will justify its existence expansion of
> the first habitat is more probable, economic and
> feasible than to build an entirely new one.
Agreed to a point. I find it unlikely that a Habitat design will only
have enough capacity for the immediate needs forseen at the design
stage. So, yes as matters develop in orbit, the unused capacity built
into the Habitat will be used. However, like all systems there are
limits. Unlike Earth-based city models, you can't just keep expanding
the boundaries and keep adding incremental citizens.
At some point the design limit is reached and a new Habitat must be
opened. Likely, the construction will start on this new Habitat long
before the design limit on the initial Habitat is reached.
> Like cities on earth the habitats must be designed and
> built with flexibility and expansion capability in
> mind so they can grow in a step by step process in
> accordance with their functional requirements.
Agreed, if you mean that the unused capacity is designed in at the
start. Disagree, if you mean that you can stop the spinning of the
Habitat and add another kilometer of length to it, or if you really
mean this incrementally, to continually be adding another 20 meters
everytime the Habitat runs up against its design limit.
> Let also keep in mind that the society that will
> master space settlement construction will be far
> advanced than the existing,
True, if you equate advancement with the passing years. We're not
building Habitats now, so if they are built in the future, I'd say
it's a safe bet that they'll be more advanced.
> they will utilize robots for most construction and manufacturing
> activities,
I'm sure that robots will be involved, but whether they'll be used as
extensively as you envision I'm not so sure. If your scenario comes to
pass then why do we need to even have a Habitat in orbit for the
people will become redundant?
> will use new materials and processes with nanotech
> improvements,
Quite likely, though not assured. Just because nanotech might be more
efficient on Earth doesn't mean the supply chain and cost/benefit
analysis in orbit will be identical. The economy of scale may not be
present in orbit to warrant establishing a whole nanotech supply
chain, and lunar or NEO base metals may actually be cheaper to work with.
> will be composed by humans with enhanced
> capabilities, mental and physical, including much
> longer life spans than now.
Maybe, maybe not.
> In that scenario is very difficult to predit easons
> and motivations for people to go there unless such
> society realizes that human destiny is to move away
> from its native planet to assure future survival and
> unlimited expansion.
Yeah, it is difficult to predict the future, and all we're really
arguing about is how many angels can fit on the head of a pin,
nevertheless, ISTM that reasoning and motivations (which have
withstood the test of time) shouldn't be abandoned.
> Probably extraterrestrial advanced civilizations have
> already left their planet of origin and has built
> space settlements in other planetary systems and are
> or have alraedy expanded in interstellar space in a
> pattern similar to Kardashev's society classification
Maybe, maybe not :)
TangoMan
Just an added thought. The US military has some pretty sophisticated
technology in its arsenal. Why doesn't it sell that to all comers?
Why doesn't Coke sell its secret formula or Colonel Sanders and his
secret Herbs and Spices mix?
Anyway you look at it, the group that puts up the initial orbital
enterprise has an incentive not to give the keys away. Doesn't matter
if the group is wholely private enterprise or at the other end of the
spectrum a NASA/ESA consortium. NATO won't sell its competitive
advantage, technology, to the Chinese and NASA/ESA won't be inclined
to make the job easier for the Chinese or the Russians or whatever
group that is not in the original consortium.
Does Saudia Arabia or Venezuela or any other oil producing country
willingly give up sovereignty over their oil fields. In a sense, I
think the sovereignty model may be illustrative to our purposes. Does
the US sanction using seafill/landfill technology to create new
microstates around the world because it would create employment for US
companies and citizens?
TangoMan
> Then if costs can be brought down yet another order of magnitude,
one > can move to a much broader market.
the orbital costs can be brought down, and I'm pretty sure that this
can happen because of the amortization of orbital assets, then the
market for orbital goods can expand by satisfying lower price points.
However, the variable we're writing about needs to be nailed down,
rather than assumed. As Windows XP gets less expensive its market can
increase. Or do you mean that as Windows XP gets less expensive then
Microsoft will sell its code to Windows XP and enable copycats to
develop as competition? The variable is the goods/services rather than
the Habitat (which is essential to produce the unique goods/services.)
In the orbital sense of this scenario, I'd imagine that goods and
services originating in orbit will become less expensive to market,
and distinct goods and services may develop that aren't replicable on
Earth. Such market growth could lead to societal growth in orbit but I
think that such a scenario would exclude the whole "different
government and different society" experimental microcosms that is a
staple of O'Neillian lore. To enable such experimentation would be
akin to Microsoft setting up its own competitors to compete in the OS
market.
Now sure, there are always attempts to market alternatives to Windows,
and I'm sure that the attempt to duplicate the bootstrap process will
be undertaken. Some may suggest that self-replicating seeds and such
will be the magic pill that eliminates the bootstrap process, but that
seems a bit deus ex machina to me. Also, I don't think a community of
volunteers donating their free time are going to be able to finance
the whole undertaking. We might see a concerted effort to "break the
monopoly" launched for political purposes but surely not economic
ones. By the time the new competing supply chain is set up and SPSs
are coming off the assembly line, the original group would have reaped
extraordinary profits, firmed up their balance sheets, and be in a
strong position to lower the price of their SPS units in order to kill
the fledgling enterprise in its infancy before it can furthr establish
a beachhead in orbit.
The only way I see distinct orbital political units developing is
through political secession. That's always a messy process but now the
orbital assets are split in a cosmic divorce of sorts.
TangoMan
>I'm sure that robots will be involved, but whether they'll be used as
>extensively as you envision I'm not so sure. If your scenario comes to
>pass then why do we need to even have a Habitat in orbit for the
>people will become redundant?
We now already have a mood on Earth that some groups (terrorists) are
not shy off of dying only to do harm to the hatred.
If that mood doesnt change - with ever newer possibilities of
technology, Earth might become a dangerous place for humanity - think
alone of biological or chemical weapons or nuclear power stations
going off.
Some more reason could be spirit of adventure and the need to get
engineers out into space for better understanding the products
(robots, space factories) they are developing.
To speed up the process of going into space with the abilities we have
now, I would think, first habitats (following the ISS) would emerge
Near Earth within Earths magnetic shields to avoid the need for heavy
shielding. That is the phase we are in now, we have already a habitat
in space, the ISS and should bring it ultimately to work for space
construction.
In that phase we need engineers and workers in Near Earth locations to
speed development of space infra structure up.
Later I agree with you, were it only for space manufacturing or
extraction of ore, humans in space could become redundant.
We could do a lot remote controlled from Earth.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
>Agreed, if you mean that the unused capacity is designed in at the
>start. Disagree, if you mean that you can stop the spinning of the
>Habitat and add another kilometer of length to it, or if you really
>mean this incrementally, to continually be adding another 20 meters
>everytime the Habitat runs up against its design limit.
bottom-of-stack box (tablet or checker form).
When the first box is full they would just add another one
growing columnar.
Just add another tablet and the column starts to grow.
The added tablet would get speeded up to the habitat rotation rate
before getting added.
I would see no limit in the length of this column since it is rotating
around the pole of the tablet plane.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
At the moment what we are lacking the most are the
right motivations and economic feasibility of space
settlements
With existing technology , at 10000$\Kg in LEO, no
plans are possible.
If you consider that to put 10 people in LEO with the
shuttle the cost is about 400MIL$ that makes
40MIL\PERSON in LEO only
TO GO TO L5 AS AN EXAMPLE ADD ANOTHER 20mil\person,
which is a very conservative figure, and you would
have a 60mil$ per person just for transportation.
for 1000colonists means 60B$ for the 10000 as envision
by ONeill is 600B
Does this make any sense?
So let's go back to reality and see the entire
operation from a strategic point of view
Priority one, is to slash transportation costs to LEO
to no more than 100$\KG.
With such capability the space frontier will at last
open up to private entrepeneurs, Mars missions, space
tourism, lunar bases and so on.
How we go from LEO to other desired locations at an
affordable cost?
By deflecting asteroids, put them in cycler
trajectories between earth and the main destinations,
equip them with a space station type of facility and
utilize their resources for life support activities,
including fuel for shuttle between the cyclers and the
final destination and we have a nearly cost free
cruise ship .
Only after we have such a capability, we can start
seriusly talking about space settlements and their
economic feasibility, prepare business plans and
define the motivations for their construction.
In the meantime we can update the settlement design
with state of the art concepts,such as defining the
design goals, flexibility, modularity, expansion
capability, asteroid as material source, allowing any
solar system location and so on.
The final goal must not be a few small space
settlements but in the long range the capability of
mankind to leave their planet of origin and expand in
space, first in the solar system later in interstellar
space
The only and best way to go will not be to try to
terraform planets , the gravity with earth will always
be a major obstacle, but to build artificial planets ,
in the best possible stellar orbit, utilizing local
comets and asteroids as raw materials and assuring the
possibility to billion of humans to expand their
presence in space.
According to Kardashev a Dyson sphere habitat is only
a 1.6 society classification which means that we still
have a long way to go, being at .8 at the moment
before we can make significant progress in space.
>I'm sure that robots will be involved, but whether
they'll be used as
>extensively as you envision I'm not so sure. If your
scenario comes to
>pass then why do we need to even have a Habitat in
orbit for the
>people will become redundant?
One reason would be to secure other places for
humanities existence.
We now already have a mood on Earth that some groups
(terrorists) are
not shy off of dying only to do harm to the hatred.
If that mood doesnt change - with ever newer
possibilities of
technology, Earth might become a dangerous place for
humanity - think
alone of biological or chemical weapons or nuclear
power stations
going off.
Some more reason could be spirit of adventure and the
need to get
engineers out into space for better understanding the
products
(robots, space factories) they are developing.
To speed up the process of going into space with the
abilities we have
now, I would think, first habitats (following the ISS)
would emerge
Near Earth within Earths magnetic shields to avoid
the need for heavy
shielding. That is the phase we are in now, we have
already a habitat
in space, the ISS and should bring it ultimately to
work for space
construction.
In that phase we need engineers and workers in Near
Earth locations to
speed development of space infra structure up.
Later I agree with you, were it only for space
manufacturing or
extraction of ore, humans in space could become
redundant.
We could do a lot remote controlled from Earth.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with
docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone
near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal
ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
Space
exploration
Computer science
Science education
Princeton university
>At the moment what we are lacking the most are the
>right motivations and economic feasibility of space
>settlements
>With existing technology , at 10000$\Kg in LEO, no
>plans are possible.
that level? This might need a long time.
Why not just use the capacity we are having already to go forward and
do some things we are able to do now, getting a head start when the
launch price has come down too?
What would we need first to build habitats? Materials already located
in space which we could extract best outside of a heavy gravitation
well - off Athens group Near Earth asteroids, were we have lots of
energy not only for power generation but for cheap solar sail
propulsion also.
You dont have to put fuel into space for acceleration gained from
solar light pressure.
If we start to place one or more solar sail motherships into space we
had the interplanetary transport infra structure already in place and
probably also the infra structure to mine those asteroids and bring
the materials back to Earth orbit.
If you take a look onto the links at the end of this message youll
find a solar sail design with an possible earth weight of about 15
tons with a docking and payload station of about 22000 m^3 volume to
take on several landers, flying ore containers and satellites to
provide earth like space navigation and observation for asteroid
mining operations.
Moreover the solar cell arrays located around the docking station
could deliver power for a mobile laser daughter unit for melting and
probably processing materials directly at the asteroid.
>If you consider that to put 10 people in LEO with the
>shuttle the cost is about 400MIL$ that makes
>40MIL\PERSON in LEO only
>TO GO TO L5 AS AN EXAMPLE ADD ANOTHER 20mil\person,
>which is a very conservative figure, and you would
>have a 60mil$ per person just for transportation.
I would look first to the immediate costs to put the ISS which was
already pay ed for to a good use.
For the mothership we would need to howl 20 tons of construction
materials into space (15 tons for the mother ship another 5 tons for
construction equipment) and than let 10 astronauts work one year on
the construction we would need 200 million to get those 20 tons into
space and say one billion for those 10 astronaut years plus further
development and construction costs on Earth.
With about 2 billion this comes not cheap but is very feasible for the
community of countries which support the ISS.
>for 1000colonists means 60B$ for the 10000 as envision
>by ONeill is 600B
>Does this make any sense?
>So let's go back to reality and see the entire
>operation from a strategic point of view
>Priority one, is to slash transportation costs to LEO
>to no more than 100$\KG.
Priority one for me would be to get to asteroids for material
extraction and transport into Earth orbit.
>With such capability the space frontier will at last
>open up to private entrepeneurs, Mars missions, space
>tourism, lunar bases and so on.
>How we go from LEO to other desired locations at an
>affordable cost?
>By deflecting asteroids, put them in cycler
>trajectories between earth and the main destinations,
>equip them with a space station type of facility and
>utilize their resources for life support activities,
>including fuel for shuttle between the cyclers and the
>final destination and we have a nearly cost free
>cruise ship .
Why would we deflect a big asteroid first? A big asteroid is quite a
lot of mass we cant handle for a long time.
We have to mine that asteroid anyway, if in Earth orbit or in its
original orbit.
But we could just take away those materials we need in the moment or
the materials we could get away with one cargo load and bring just
that back to Earth saving to accelerate the huge rest of the asteroid.
When the transportation is mainly free through free solar pressure
propulsion, why would we need to waste precious asteroid materials for
propulsion?
>Only after we have such a capability, we can start
>seriusly talking about space settlements and their
>economic feasibility, prepare business plans and
>define the motivations for their construction.
>In the meantime we can update the settlement design
>with state of the art concepts,such as defining the
>design goals, flexibility, modularity, expansion
>capability, asteroid as material source, allowing any
>solar system location and so on.
>The final goal must not be a few small space
>settlements but in the long range the capability of
>mankind to leave their planet of origin and expand in
>space, first in the solar system later in interstellar
>space
I would agree here.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with
docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone
near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal
ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
I agree with many of your arguments
i am suggesting to deflect a small asteroid about
100000 ton mass , arond 30\50meters diameter not a big
one
possibly with water
that should be enough to secure either tarsnporation
as a cycler or a construction base
I am currently working, being an architect, on a
complete redesignof the space settlement, defining
basic modules and the possibility to expand up to
planet size and i have reached positive results .
what depress me is the complete lack of strategy on
long run goals by nasa or other space agencies and the
shortsighness of politicians about space activities
>At the moment what we are lacking the most are the
>right motivations and economic feasibility of space
>settlements
>With existing technology , at 10000$\Kg in LEO, no
>plans are possible.
So should we sit on our thumbs until the kg
launch-costs are down to
that level? This might need a long time.
Why not just use the capacity we are having already to
go forward and
do some things we are able to do now, getting a head
start when the
launch price has come down too?
What would we need first to build habitats? Materials
already located
in space which we could extract best outside of a
heavy gravitation
well - off Athens group Near Earth asteroids, were we
have lots of
energy not only for power generation but for cheap
solar sail
propulsion also.
You dont have to put fuel into space for acceleration
gained from
solar light pressure.
If we start to place one or more solar sail
motherships into space we
had the interplanetary transport infra structure
already in place and
probably also the infra structure to mine those
asteroids and bring
the materials back to Earth orbit.
If you take a look onto the links at the end of this
message youll
find a solar sail design with an possible earth weight
of about 15
tons with a docking and payload station of about 22000
m^3 volume to
take on several landers, flying ore containers and
satellites to
provide earth like space navigation and observation
for asteroid
mining operations.
Moreover the solar cell arrays located around the
docking station
could deliver power for a mobile laser daughter unit
for melting and
probably processing materials directly at the
asteroid.
>If you consider that to put 10 people in LEO with the
>shuttle the cost is about 400MIL$ that makes
>40MIL\PERSON in LEO only
>TO GO TO L5 AS AN EXAMPLE ADD ANOTHER 20mil\person,
>which is a very conservative figure, and you would
>have a 60mil$ per person just for transportation.
I would look first to the immediate costs to put the
ISS which was
already pay ed for to a good use.
For the mothership we would need to howl 20 tons of
construction
materials into space (15 tons for the mother ship
another 5 tons for
construction equipment) and than let 10 astronauts
work one year on
the construction we would need 200 million to get
those 20 tons into
space and say one billion for those 10 astronaut years
plus further
development and construction costs on Earth.
With about 2 billion this comes not cheap but is very
feasible for the
community of countries which support the ISS.
>for 1000colonists means 60B$ for the 10000 as
envision
>by ONeill is 600B
>Does this make any sense?
>So let's go back to reality and see the entire
>operation from a strategic point of view
>Priority one, is to slash transportation costs to LEO
>to no more than 100$\KG.
Priority one for me would be to get to asteroids for
material
extraction and transport into Earth orbit.
>With such capability the space frontier will at last
>open up to private entrepeneurs, Mars missions, space
>tourism, lunar bases and so on.
>How we go from LEO to other desired locations at an
>affordable cost?
>By deflecting asteroids, put them in cycler
>trajectories between earth and the main destinations,
>equip them with a space station type of facility and
>utilize their resources for life support activities,
>including fuel for shuttle between the cyclers and
the
>final destination and we have a nearly cost free
>cruise ship .
Why would we deflect a big asteroid first? A big
asteroid is quite a
lot of mass we cant handle for a long time.
We have to mine that asteroid anyway, if in Earth
orbit or in its
original orbit.
But we could just take away those materials we need in
the moment or
the materials we could get away with one cargo load
and bring just
that back to Earth saving to accelerate the huge rest
of the asteroid.
When the transportation is mainly free through free
solar pressure
propulsion, why would we need to waste precious
asteroid materials for
propulsion?
>Only after we have such a capability, we can start
>seriusly talking about space settlements and their
>economic feasibility, prepare business plans and
>define the motivations for their construction.
>In the meantime we can update the settlement design
>with state of the art concepts,such as defining the
>design goals, flexibility, modularity, expansion
>capability, asteroid as material source, allowing any
>solar system location and so on.
>The final goal must not be a few small space
>settlements but in the long range the capability of
>mankind to leave their planet of origin and expand in
>space, first in the solar system later in
interstellar
>space
I would agree here.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with
docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone
near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal
ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
Space
exploration
Computer science
Science education
Princeton university
>I agree with many of your arguments
>i am suggesting to deflect a small asteroid about
>100000 ton mass , arond 30\50meters diameter not a big
>one
Solar-Thruster-Sailor design I propose could take that asteroid into
its central payload ring-structure.
With winches on this ring and a laser unit to melt the water ice to
place anchors it could safely hold that asteroid in its center.
The problem I see is the high mass, even if it is only 20000 tons it
is way too much. For a solar sail of my design I would estimate
maximal only 100 tons of mass for one single payload.
So take a look onto a chemical rocket were 90 % of the mass is for
fuel. You would put out the biggest part of the asteroid material for
propulsion only while you can get 100 % of that material back to Earth
with solar sail container- or tug-ships in a lot of smaller charges.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with
docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone
near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal
ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
http://www.vivoscuola.it/us/mscvni10015/Web/Casa%20BiancaR.htm
maybe we can get the best of two worlds with the
following consideratiions:
thereason I propose a deflected asteroid as spaceship
on a cycler trajectory is due to one factor: asteroid
have resources that can be utilized in space, solar
sails don't.
But solar sails as you proposed, with the right
modifications could be the best propulsion system for
small asteroids, even the 10\20\30000tons which would
be big enough to supply what necessary.
The asteroid would be equipped with the astrohab
system, see the link above, and would work as a hotel
plus life support production facility.
On a cycler orbit between earth, the moon , mars or
other locations this could be the most affordable
solution with existing technology.
I don't foreee asteroid mining to bring the material
back to earth.
We have all the needed materials here already at a
fraction of the cost compared to space produced ones.,
but i can see the utilization and minimg of asteroids
in space, to supply all needed materials for
spacesettlements and space manufacturing..
>I agree with many of your arguments
>i am suggesting to deflect a small asteroid about
>100000 ton mass , arond 30\50meters diameter not a
big
>one
if you make the diameter a bit smaller, about 15\25
meters the
Solar-Thruster-Sailor design I propose could take that
asteroid into
its central payload ring-structure.
With winches on this ring and a laser unit to melt the
water ice to
place anchors it could safely hold that asteroid in
its center.
The problem I see is the high mass, even if it is only
20000 tons it
is way too much. For a solar sail of my design I would
estimate
maximal only 100 tons of mass for one single payload.
So take a look onto a chemical rocket were 90 % of the
mass is for
fuel. You would put out the biggest part of the
asteroid material for
propulsion only while you can get 100 % of that
material back to Earth
with solar sail container- or tug-ships in a lot of
smaller charges.
Frank
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info
For the first solar sail design of a carrier ship with
docking able
landers and with roller reefing
making it possible to leave the atmospheric drag zone
near a space
station and getting back again delivering asteroidal
ore to that
Near Earth space station
take a look at:
www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig13.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig14-15.html
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/figs/fig17.html
> We have all the needed materials here already at a
> fraction of the cost compared to space produced ones.,
> but i can see the utilization and minimg of asteroids
> in space, to supply all needed materials for
> spacesettlements and space manufacturing..
becomes feasible? How about platinum-series elements? Both He3 and
platinum-series elements are known to be in higher concentrations in
lunar regolith, and there may very well be asteroids that are richer
yet.
>http://www.vivoscuola.it/us/mscvni10015/Web/Casa%20BiancaR.htm
I think it is a long way until we can place such buildings onto Mars
and asteroids.
We dont even have the ability to get humans out of Earths radiation
shield without subjecting them to death.
I think that will not change for a long time to go.
But we could be able in a very shorter time frame to send out robotic
space crafts and bring back asteroidal ore to Low Earth orbit.
>maybe we can get the best of two worlds with the
>following consideratiions:
>thereason I propose a deflected asteroid as spaceship
>on a cycler trajectory is due to one factor: asteroid
>have resources that can be utilized in space, solar
>sails don't.
Solar sails have a very important resource, constant thrust through
Suns light pressure. That means free transportation.
They also can carry large power producing solar arrays (at least in my
design). That means free energy.
But I agree, asteroidal recourses could be one of the main reasons to
get them out into space.
>But solar sails as you proposed, with the right
>modifications could be the best propulsion system for
>small asteroids, even the 10\20\30000tons which would
>be big enough to supply what necessary.
The sail I propose would deliver up to about 36 N of constant thrust
(that is 3.6 kg every second). But it is not only about
moving 10 000 000 kg with that 3.6 kg constant thrust.
You have to overcome the inertia of that asteroid too.
I am not sure if that is possible in a reasonable time frame.
>The asteroid would be equipped with the astrohab
>system, see the link above, and would work as a hotel
>plus life support production facility.
>On a cycler orbit between earth, the moon , mars or
>other locations this could be the most affordable
>solution with existing technology.
Sorry, but I think we just dont have the technology now to put humans
into unshielded space because of radiation.
>I don't foreee asteroid mining to bring the material
>back to earth.
>We have all the needed materials here already at a
>fraction of the cost compared to space produced ones.,
If you take the costs for howling 1 kg into space of 10000 $ a 100 ton
payload of water ice could be worth 1 billion bucks when in Low Earth
Orbit.
The first spacecraft doing such a mission would also make a lot of
profit out of television and publishing rights.
The two billion for the first mission could come in with that mission
only, afterwards the sail craft gets off to the next mission and
starts to earn profits.
Frank
with current lack of strategical long range goals, as
exemplified by the CEV program, a preshuttle
technology substitution, space settlements are at
least 50\60 years , if ever, in the future.
By that time advances in nanotech manufacturing will
allow economic production of any advanced material and
products here on Earth and unless an all new component
is found in space , there will be no need for space
manufactuiring.
Same thing happened in the 80s when it seemed that
space manufactiuring at zerog, was the buzzword for
pharmaceutical and other industries.
The same product could be made here with much less
expense and the entire Commercial Space concept, as
was called at the time collapsed.
By that time also AIs will have reach the singularity
point and will be smarter than humans, again
questioning the rationale to send humans in space to
perform activities that coud be made more economically
and without human risks by machines.
The above doesnot mean that we must stop, and I am
still convinced that mankind must expand out of our
planet of origin, but if we want to do it we will need
the technical and economical tools as well as the
philosophical and conceptual motivations to do it.
Current plans does not follow such rationale but are
only Apollo style dead end technological stunts, with
no strategic or historical vision of human role in
space nor its future.
On 7/8/05, giorgio gaviraghi giogavir@...
> We have all the needed materials here already at a
> fraction of the cost compared to space produced
ones.,
> but i can see the utilization and minimg of
asteroids
> in space, to supply all needed materials for
> spacesettlements and space manufacturing..
Is that true? Do we have all the He3 we will need, if
fusion power
becomes feasible? How about platinum-series elements?
Both He3 and
platinum-series elements are known to be in higher
concentrations in
lunar regolith, and there may very well be asteroids
that are richer
yet.