Diversification

I hold no allegiance to any particular technological ideas of O'Neill, per
se. The concepts that I think are core are the following:

1.) Don't dive down into some deep gravity well (e.g., Mars) just after
having expended so much energy to get off the Earth.
2.) Realize that there are plentiful resources in the Inner Solar System
beyond the Earth that are not in deep gravity wells (e.g., Luna, NEOs).
Exploit these dead, airless bodies to drive the expansion of humanity into
space.

When I read the High Frontier and see O'Neill talking about colonies of
ten thousand people or more, my eyes glaze over. I'd be happy if there
were 100 non-NASA people living off-Earth, much less 10,000. Yes, I
completely agree that we need to focus on space tourism. And on SPSs and
orbital transfer vehicles and GEO antenna farms and on other means to
generate a positive economic impact. Colonization will occur AFTER we've
learned to make goodly amounts of money off-planet. We can't have an
"Island One" filled with 10,000 people living in space until there is an
economic reason for 10,000 people to live in space. And if it takes
10,000 people to construct SPSs, then we're sunk because the startup costs
will be much, much too large to justify the endeavor.

What I would fault O'Neill for is that his vision, expressed in The High
Frontier, is too far away into the future. Zubrin and The Mars Society,
by contrast, want to get a few handfuls of people onto Mars soon, a much
more limited vision. True, Zubrin and Mars Society advocates are into
the whole long-term terraforming thing, but they have a specific and
limited near-term proposal: Mars Direct.

Mars Direct is Zubrin's near-term, limited, government-funded proposal. We
need to counter with something similar.

What do you think about this counter-proposal to Mars Direct: return
NEO 1991 VG --- all of it --- to ISS Alpha. The 1991 VG is probably less
than 10 meters in diameter (absolute magnitude 28.5). We can do this
thing with less technology than required by Mars Direct.

Ron Menich

Al Globus
09/21/01 06:03 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic. Even if they had been met, O'Neil's was
being very optimistic.

These problems are why I like the space tourism approach -- money now if
you solve the launch problem. If you don't solve the launch problem,
space colonization won't happen.

Mike wrote:

2. The common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not
implemented because there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption
rather than a demonstrated fact.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

1.) Don't dive down into some deep gravity well (e.g., Mars) just after having expended so much energy to get off the Earth.
2.) Realize that there are plentiful resources in the Inner Solar System beyond the Earth that are not in deep gravity wells (e.g., Luna, NEOs). Exploit these dead, airless bodies to drive the expansion of humanity into space.
When I read the High Frontier and see O'Neill talking about colonies of ten thousand people or more, my eyes glaze over. I'd be happy if there were 100 non-NASA people living off-Earth, much less 10,000. Yes, I completely agree that we need to focus on space tourism. And on SPSs and orbital transfer vehicles and GEO antenna farms and on other means to generate a positive economic impact. Colonization will occur AFTER we've learned to make goodly amounts of money off-planet. We can't have an "Island One" filled with 10,000 people living in space until there is an economic reason for 10,000 people to live in space. And if it takes 10,000 people to construct SPSs, then we're sunk because the startup costs will be much, much too large to justify the endeavor.
What I would fault O'Neill for is that his vision, expressed in The High Frontier, is too far away into the future. Zubrin and The Mars Society, by contrast, want to get a few handfuls of people onto Mars soon, a much more limited vision. True, Zubrin and Mars Society advocates are into the whole long-term terraforming thing, but they have a specific and limited near-term proposal: Mars Direct.
Mars Direct is Zubrin's near-term, limited, government-funded proposal. We need to counter with something similar.
What do you think about this counter-proposal to Mars Direct: return NEO 1991 VG --- all of it --- to ISS Alpha. The 1991 VG is probably less than 10 meters in diameter (absolute magnitude 28.5). We can do this thing with less technology than required by Mars Direct.
Ron Menich
Al Globus
09/21/01 06:03 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification
The fatal fraw in O'Neil's work was assumptions about shuttle flight
rates and cost. He assumed the 70's era figures ($500/lb and 50 flights
a year) plus a follow on freighter. Of course, these figures were
orders-of-magnitude optimistic. Even if they had been met, O'Neil's was
being very optimistic.
These problems are why I like the space tourism approach -- money now if
you solve the launch problem. If you don't solve the launch problem,
space colonization won't happen.
Mike wrote:
2. The common perception that O'Neill's ideas were not
implemented because there was some fundamental flaw is an assumption
rather than a demonstrated fact.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.