Bootstrapping - Steps One-Five

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, victoriatangoman
>
> > My thinking was that because we'd need humans in space for
assembly
> > in orbit at some point, the economy of postponing the necessary
> > infrastructure for human presence would be minimal. Perhaps that
is
> > an invalid proposition.
>
> Well, I guess my point was the kind of assembly they'll be doing
later
> (from scratch construction of spacecraft and other equipment
structural
> parts) is quite different from just joining together pre-built
pieces.

Wholeheartedly agree. I can't see a case being made for complete
refining, fabrication and assembly being made this early in the
bootstrap process for the simply reason that the infrastructure
isn't there to support it.

> Getting humans into orbit may be fun stuff, but delaying it as long
> as possible should keep costs lower, and lower general risks as
well.

Yes, you're right. I guess you and I just need to find agreement on
which stage it is "essential" to have humans on site. My primary
presumption is that the equipment we initially send to the moon is
too large to launch directly from Earth, thus it must be assembled
in orbit. Can this be done robotically - I'm not very encouraged by
the sophistication of robotics at this point. Repetitive tasks on an
assembly line - yes; complex tasks, each with unique requirements -
to me humans seem to fill that need best for now. I would appreciate
any helpful citations or links on robotics that can dupicate human
versatility because I'm completely willing to allow for robotic
assembly of equipment, OTV, deep space vessels, etc, but each is so
different from the other, I can't see one system being designed that
could assemble the myriad parts in each project.

> Of course there'll be some ramp-up time for them to be able to
start
> actual work; maybe that will require some overlap with robotic
parts
> that are logically earlier, but that depends on more
> detailed time-lines, I think...
>
> > That said, I believed that more robust vehicles could be
designed if
> > they didn't have to conform to the limitations of the earth-
launch
> > vehicle cargo capacity. By launching segments into orbit and
> > assembling them there the vehicles could be more capable.
>
> Well, the main issue there is size: physical dimensions and mass.
> Wouldn't more pieces of smaller equipment be more useful than fewer
> pieces of large equipment, both in orbit and on the lunar surface?

I would agree with your point from a perpsective of reliability and
redundancy; more robots lessens the reliance on a few critical
pieces of hardware with replacement 250,000 miles away and hundreds
of millions of dollars in emergency launch costs.

But I was referring to large size robots that I have trouble
imagining fitting into a small luanch vehicle. Consider my post on
step #5. To list just a few of the robots:

. . excavator/grader - basically a piece of "earth" moving
equipment, not a little Mars sojourner but more like a caterpillar
type of equipment - a bulldozer.

. . cast basalt paver - inside is a furnace that melts the lunar
material to lay down a foundation over the future base area. I
foresee lunar dust mitigation as a major benefit of this process and
believe that dust mitigation will reap major economic and
maintenance benefits so as to warrant the inclusion of this process
in the base design and construction.

. . brickmaker - takes lunar regolith and melts it into bricks for
future cargo as ballast for the 3 tethers that form the backbone of
the "Space Transportation System."

. . beneficiation machine - lunar regolith is dumped into this robot
and through a variety of physical processes the material is
separated into constituent minerals and elements. Considering the
grinding, pulverizing, heating, melting, etc I again foresee a piece
of large equipment.

. . metal extruder to make rebar - take the constituent iron and
with small stocks of other additives start making steel rebar for
future construction use. The volume doesn't have to match an Earth
steel mill, not by a long shot, but over the period of a year or so,
enough rebar should be manufactured and stockpiled by the little
robot so that construction can commence when all of the building
materials have been assembled. Basically, a minature steel mill.

Now, if all of the above can be manufactured so that they can be
launched directly from Earth, then terrific. That would drastically
simplify the process by removing the necessity of assembling the
component parts in LEO.

> If there's a case for some very large pieces (for example a
reasonable-sized
> habitat/workshop for humans), we'll need to assemble them in space,
> but it doesn't seem really justified at this point.
>
> > So, in closing I'd be interested in your opinion on whether the
> > scrapping of 1 and 2 and the amalgamation of 4 and 5 are more
> > effective when considered in the light of a manned presence being
> > required at some point in the near future. Are we just saving a
few
> > months or a year of manned presence?
>
> of course that depends on the sequence and timing of the further
steps.
> But you were asking what order things should go in, and I don't
think
> you've made the case that 1 and 2 make sense as the first two
steps.
> 3-5 sound fine to start with, to me.
>
> Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

In light of my above comments on robots' lack of versatility with
respect to assembly of OTVs, lunar landers, deep space mining
vessels, rotating tethers, and other necessary infrastructure do you
still hold your position that steps 1 & 2 are misprioritized? Would
you eliminate them entirely or just place them later in the scheme
of things? If steps 3-8 require assembly in orbit would you launch
indiviudalized robots geared to each specific task in order to delay
human presence in orbit? IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that if
it's cost effective. I just can't see it being cost effective to
launch, pick a number, 50 or more robots to handle the diversity of
tasks that a few humans with proper training could do.

TangoMan