How many SPSes for $87 billion ?

> Speaking of energy I'd be interested to know what are the lists
opinions on
> Zaslavsky's energy towers: http://www2.ari.net/zwirnm/arubot.htm

Thanks for the link. I recall seeing this proposal a few years ago
and thought it was interesting.

> What I was curious is what you think in terms of feasibility of
this
> project... is it technically sound? Would be cost effective?

I'm not really qualified to examine the technical matters, but to my
layman's eye, I don't see any real showstoppers.

I would not jump from theory to full scale immediately. I'd be more
comfortable with scaling prototypes where the process can be
investigated in more detail, the engineering and construction can
also be examined and modeled for larger iterations.

I think it may be pemature for commercial application.

> As a completely unrelated aside, I stand by the concept of the
> self-replicating seeds. It is by far the most efficient and most
importantly
> *cheap* way to colonize space.

That assumes that they work as truely self-replicating and the
assumptions that lead you to proclaim them to be cheap do in fact
hold true. Absent these details, and the fact that they don't yet
exist, I'm not comfortable in sharing your belief in their
potential. I don't though, deny their potential to achieve your
conditions. If it will be as you say, then great. What you propose
is only a small branch on a large probability tree of the future
with respect to orbital industrialization.

Unlike all the previous colonization in human
> history the move to space is a move into an hostile environment, an
> environment in which humans can't survive without huge
infrastructures
> already in place. This is not a issue for machines, we can send
the machines
> to create the basic environment and infrastructure needed to allow
for human
> colonization to follow.

I agree. Note though, that the machines don't have to be self-
replicating.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is why try to push for a
megabillions project
> when we could achieve much more with a comparatively tiny
investment? If the
> goal is space habitats and SPS IMHO the way forward is R&D in
> self-replicating seed technology that can be started by relative
small
> private funding, much easier to obtain than huge government
spending in a
> direction that is not only opposite to the politics of current US
> administration but perhaps more importantly is directly opposite
the
> personal interests of many people in any US administration...
>
> My 2.p anyway... :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio

The problem is that we have the tech to build SPS and Habitats now,
while self-replicating machines are still impossible, thus they are
the Dues ex Machina in our dialogue.

The beauty of this list and of democracy is that we can all advocate
for our favored positions. I wonder if anyone has incorporated a non-
profit research corporation to solicit donations to be used for self-
replicating research.

As for an institutional goal, for SSI and similar organizations, I
think that they should stick to their knitting and let others devote
resources to researching self-replicating machines and then we can
use them when they are fully developed. We don't need to invent
everything, we just need to figure out how to build and pay for our
desired orbital infrastructure using the tools on hand.

TangoMan