For or Against . . .

>
> > 250,000 people is a huge number. I don't think I completely
> > understand what you are proposing here. Are you saying that
>250,000
> > is a habitat minimum? That's sort of what it sounds like.
>
>I'm not stating it as a fact, just as a "thinking outside the box"
>type of argument to see where it leads us. The conventional wisdom
>is small, bootstrapping efforts but if we follow that line of
>reasoning, how do we ever achieve habitation while maintaining a
>positive or neutral balance of payments, or for that matter, survive
>without massive, budget busting subsidies?

I am certainly one that believes "bootstrapping efforts" are the way to go,
but conversely, under your theory, how do we go from what we have now to a
self-sufficient colony of 250,000? That would require trillions and
trillions of dollars in a considerably shorter span of time (than
"bootstrapping efforts"). As improbable as you think the "bootstrapping
efforts" are, surely you don't see that as even remotely possible, right? I
mean, while theoretically possible it is virtually impossible. And if we
both agree that it is impossible, what's the point?

Also, could you elaborate on why you do NOT believe that bootstrapping
efforts will ever "achieve habitation?" What do you mean "while maintaining
a positive or neutral balance of payments?" Are you suggesting that the
best industry in space can hope for is breaking even? That there is no
profit in space-based industry? I don't think that's what you're saying, so
could you elaborate? Are you suggesting that space-based industry will not
lead to habitation? It might be best to start another thread and give this
subject it's due.

> > "Self-sustaining" is the key word here. You mean a habitat large
> > enough to provide all material needs for 250,000 people, and that
> > is a huge number.
>
>Yes it is a huge number, and yes, self-sustaining is the key. I can
>see a few years of subsidies from earth, perhaps a decade, but, and
>pardon my momentary lapse into the ludicrous, but I can't really see
>the mission controller saying "And we have lift-off of STS mission
>number 256, transporting toothbrushes and toilet paper to the 1,000
>hardy pioneers in orbit. STS mission 257, scheduled for next week is
>on schedule for delivery of the essential shoes, pillows, razor
>blades, pharmaceuticals, band-aids, watches and other personal items
>for our band of pioneers."

While you make a valid point, I don't see any of this as prohibitive. I can
easily see our "band of pioneers" ordering those items "online". Yes, they
may have to pay $5 for a toothbrush or a roll of toilet paper. And by the
time we have "pioneers" in need of such items, we should also have better
(read: cheaper) space transportation systems to deliver the goods. But at
some point the in-space market will demand access to cheaper goods and the
industry to develop these goods will be created.

>I've privately reached a conclusion in which I think habitats will
>never be economically self-sustainable while small in size.

I agree with you 100%. I, too, do not believe small habitats can be
self-sustainable. But nor do I believe they have to be.

>The
>alternative for all that industry in space will be either earth
>launched or tele-robotically operated facilities from earth.

I believe that is how each step should start, but I do not hold the
contention that the facility wouldn't or shouldn't develop into a manned
facility. I believe at some point this will make fiscal sense.

>No cities in space, because incrementally, at each decision step, the
>cheaper alternative will be to not send people into orbit,

That is the cheaper alternative, but again, men and women should follow.
And I believe will (certainly can).

Jack