Critical time

Mark Collins wrote

"I think the thing to aim for is producing a Solar Power Satellite from
extraterrestrial materials. That would be a great achievement and would
bring the first revenue and benefits."

There might even be smaller steps that NASA could make that could produce
useful results. Consider the establishment in HEO (e.g., L4/L5 or GEO
or...) of a storehouse of Lunar or asteroidal materials. Suppose NASA
would establish a process for placing at the storehouse one hundred tons of
Lunar or asteroidal material per year.

One hundred tons per year is a level of effort much smaller than that
required to build an SPS, but I speculate that such a raw material supply
might provide the seed for the germination of a space manufacturing
industry. It might not be possible to build an SPS with a hundred tons of
extraterrestrial resource per year, but it might be enough to begin
producing a variety of other useful things for space industrialization such
as oxygen, solar cells, structural members for communications dishes, etc.
Perhaps the raw materials could be auctioned off in lots of one or ten tons
each to private concerns.

But alas, it is unlikely that space manufacturing/industrialization will
ever capture the public imagination like the search for life will.
They're running a 'show', you know. I guess this is why Goldin puts
emphasis on Mars and Europa, even though focusing on those targets is
likely to delay the day when I can finally play volleyball in free-fall.
Maybe we space industrialization enthusiasts ought to think about swimming
partially with the flow, and putting emphasis on developing Phobos/Deimos
resources, even if Phobos/Deimos might not be as desirable a target as the
Moon or certain NEAs for space industrialization. Maybe we could hang off
the end of the Mars bandwagon.

Ron Menich

"Mark

04/03/01
09:59 AM
Please
respond to
ssi_list

I think you are very correct here - that is why a lot of less well
publicised scaled down studies were performed by O'Neill himself. In
his book 'The High Frontier' he admitted himself that no-one would be
more surprised than himself if the final Island One implementation
turned out to be anything like the one he proposed.

The kind of study he made was not meant to be a blue print for the
actual project - just an exercise in measuring possibilities a bit
like a concept car does for automobiles.

I think the thing to aim for is producing a Solar Power Satellite
from extraterrestrial materials. That would be a great achievement
and would bring the first revenue and benefits. From there it is
conceivable we could achieve a self-sustaining Space effort.

Whatever the difficulties in achieving what O'Neill envisaged I think
the ideas he proposed still need to be stood up and counted as the
principles of what he preached still ring true. We just need to shed
the 70's style in which it was promoted - wwhich has obviously become
dated now - as anything we do now will be in 30 years time.

Regards

Mark

> Given that NASA is supplying the bulk of the coverage as free media
& that
> Dan Goldin's NASA ranks Mars, Mars, Mars, Europa & Mars as the five
leading
> targets for space exploration, what's the big surprise?
>
> I think the challenge of selling an O'Neill vision would be rather
more
> difficult than Mars (or the Lunar alternative), though. At the risk
of
> getting lynched, nothing dates faster than futurism; & the massive
> construction vision of the classical O'Neill colony is so much a
part of the
> postApollo bigger is brighter school that returning to the concept
in 2000
> as we did seemed strangely quaint. There's so much construction &
> transportation required for even a small colony to be established -
& no way
> for the colony to achieve even nominal self sufficiency in the
short term -
> that with current & nearterm technologies, the concept simply isn't
a viable
> alternative.
>
> I have no objection to politicising space per se... the trouble
arises when
> the politics gets seriously at odds with the reality. The Mars or
Bust
> labrynthodonts have crossed that frontier a few times already; but
without
> massively reducing the space construction involved in a conventional
> O'Neill, it's difficult to see how anyone could possibly sell it as
anything
> but long term sf.
>
> (Tunnelling colonies from inside existing NEOs as an adjunct to
spacemining
> beats the transportation & self sufficiency traps by leveraging
equipment
> mass into in situ construction; but still requires a mature space
culture in
> advance of any current manned missions to Mars or the Moon to be
> workable...)
>
> All the best,
> Robert Clements
> endeavour2 project
http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>
>
> > I think the current time is very critical.
> >
> > The ISS is due for completion in 2006 - even earlier if the Bush
> > administration gets it's way. This will free up space resources
world
> > wide as the ISS is a multi-nation collaboration. Once this is
> > finished NASA and the other countries involved in the ISS will be
> > looking for new direction in space development.
> >
> > If we are to prevent the monopolisation of space resources by
> > the 'let's get to Mars as soon as possible' we must start
promoting
> > the Gerard O'Neill vision now. We risk another short term mega-
bucks
> > blow out similar to Apollo with the delay of SPS and space
> > colonisation, which are surely a more sensible course to take.
This
> > time there is a risk of other countries getting dragged in too.
> >
> > I think the SSI has recognised this time is important and hence
the
> > release of the third edition of 'The High Frontier' (of which I
am a
> > proud owner).
> >
> > This has also been recognised by the Mars Direct/Zubrin
supporters.
> > Here in the UK there has been an endless stream of Mars
> > exploration/possible manned mission documentary programs. I have
not
> > seen one single program about the SSI and/or Gerard O'Neill and
his
> > ideas. If things continue in this vein the all will be lost and
space
> > development will spend more decades in the doldrums.
> >
> > I have emailed and telephoned various media about this in the UK
and
> > I will see if I get anywhere.
> >
> > My question is - is this Mars coverage situation and lack of
coverage
> > of other ideas the same in all countries? Is anyone else in this
> > group trying to change this in the same way I am??
> >
> > I despair of the unfairness of it all!! Let's get out of this rut
of
> > expensive one off spectaculars and get some real work done in
space!!