TGD (ver 1.0) space station argument

--- In spacesettlers@y..., smasters@g... wrote:
> I recently got Robert Zubrin's `The Case for Mars'. The first
quarter
> of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go
to
> mars. I think a little discussion in our group of what our goals
> should be would be very health so I propose THE GREAT DEPATE (ver
> 1.0).
>
> TOPIC
> Where should we go/start?
> Should we:
> -go to Mars
> -go to the Moon
> -go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
> -start with sea-based colonies
> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
not
> advanced enough
> -(if I have left a destination/goal out, please feel free to add)
>

A space station at L4 or L5 would be in a stable orbit at the top of
the Earth-Moon gravity well. Ore mined on the lunar surface could be
shipped to a zero-gee processing facility at the station, or a NEA
could be steered to the station (over a period of several orbits,
using mass drivers or solar sails) for processing. I propose using
discarded space shuttle external tanks (ETs) as building blocks for
the space stations station. Two main types of space stations have
been proposed by Space Island Group
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/homepage.html
the Geode station as a microgravity facility (7 ETs strapped
together) and a wheel station of 16 ETs (four in the central core and
12 along the circumference). These would initially be made as LEO
operational bases, but could be boosted to L4 or L5 later on.

Such facilities could work together to provide for much longer space
missions. Astronauts' time would be split among the microgravity
environment of the Geode station and the 1/3 gravity environment of
the wheel station, so deleterious effects of microgravity would be
offset or obviated altogether.

Orbiting stations, particularly those in libration orbits, would be
useful as staging areas for missions to Mars or the Moon. Large
craft, such as the type needed for any extremely long duration
missions, could be assembled in the "safe harbor" of the space
station rather than "on the high seas" like the International Space
Station. Or, the space station itself could be the long-mission
craft. If you can build one in orbit and _move_ it, then you can
move to the orbit of, say, Mars for instance.

A wheel-shaped station located at L1 or L2, the libration orbits on
the near and far sides of the moon, could be used as staging areas
for _regular_ moon landings, as launch areas for ore - a mass driver
on the moon would launch to L1 or L2, then cargo would be launched
from there to anywhere else (particularly L4 or L5). Mass launched
from a wheel station would be launched tangentially to the axis of
rotation, thus either increasing or decreasing the rotation rate of
the station without displacing it from its orbit if so desired -
multiple regular launches would ensure stability of the station as a
whole, both in orbital maintenance (use slag), and in rotational rate.

I say build the orbiting stations first, then use them as staging
areas for long-duration manned missions as well as using them for ore
processing (particularly of NEAs), microgravity pharmaceutical and
materials manufacturing, Really Big Telescopes, tourism, and so on.

All Space Island Group really needs to get going is one salvaged
orbiting external tank - and then one more. By induction, the rest
should fall into place.

The waste of these ETs has got me really steamed (103 so far, 150 to
go). The main problem is not orbit circularization, the SOFI, or
turning it into a viable spacecraft (although these are the issues
NASA wants dealt with in any ET salvage operation). The main problem
is NASA itself - it currently has a near-monopoly on space, and it is
NASA's best interest to maintain the status quo.

In the same way, Dennis Tito would NEVER go into space if NASA held
all the cards. All that BS about how his prescence would endanger
the ISS assembly process is a smokescreen and pure horseshit. He has
been training with his fellow cosmonauts, Russian doctors have OK'ed
him to fly, he's willing to pay through the nose for the experience,
he's been learning Russian, what's the problem? - NASA doesn't want
civilians in space, and they don't want Tito to set a precedent.
They want everyone who isn't a Russian and becomes an astronaut to be
a part of NASA first, and they want the right to veto who goes into
space. Seems kind of odd that the Russians are better entrepreneurs
than the Americans, perhaps they're not as hideboound about this
capitalism thing. If Rosaviacosmos gets X million dollars cash and
millions more in free publicity, good for them!

:) ed