A sad thought but perhaps a nessisary one

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
>
> First off, welcome to the group. It's clearly evident that you've
> given your position a lot of thought and you've come here looking
> for dialogue. Smart move that :))
>
> > Firstly, why would the government or power companies go
for
> > building solar power satelites in the first place?
>
> For the regulars in this group I'll spare them the burden of
> rehashing the argument and I'll give you the same advice I
followed
> when I joined the group - read through the archives. There is a
> goldmine of interesting discussion locked away and many of your
> questions are already addressed there.
>
> For one perspective (mine) that addresses your question, look here:
>
> logging in and clicking on MESSAGES.

This really isn't feasible, tango. There are more than 5000
messages in the archives. Anybody want to volunteer for the task of
mining the archives and putting together a FAQ?...and don't look at
me, I ain't gonna do it...

>
> > From a business standpoint there are cheaper alternatives such
as
> > nuclear power or coal and oil which have much shorter periods
> > before they make a profit than the projected decade or more
before
> > the solar power satelites start paying for themselves.
The
> > problem there is the startup cost, Mr Oniel projected the
minimum
> > cost at 90 billion dollars back in 1978! Nuke plants and
other
> > methods have costs in the millions and you want them to
pay
> > billions?
>

I'd rather not be going to governments for money to fund a project
like an SPS - that's a sure-fire money waster.

Although an SPS or a Stanford Torus (or any of the bigger habitat
designs) are on the scale of the pyramids, it does not mean that
they need to be built in the same way. For a pyramid, you have to
build the whole thing, otherwise all you've got is an unfinished
pyramid.

So an SPS does not need to be built all at once as a monolith.
Instead, smaller versions of one would be built, to do things like
beaming power to orbital space stations or industrial plants or a
lunar base. A really big SPS made for power transmission to earth
might be made up of dozens of small SPSs that had been previously
used in orbit for other tasks.

I don't think one will see Bernal Spheres or Island Three stations
anytime soon either. Instead, there will be a progression from
small temporary dwellings to larger wheel-shaped structures a few
hundred meters across at the most. Only then will serious work
begin on real colonies that hold say ten thousand people. And there
will have to be a really good economical reason for doing it then.

My great-great-grandparents were pioneers here in western Canada.
When they came here, there were no roads or electricity or sewers or
running water and the nearest railroad line was more than a week's
trek by wagon. They lived in a sod house for the first three years
here. They didn't expect to be building a city, they just built
enough for themselves and traded for what they needed and couldn't
make themselves. I expect that the first generation of space
colonists will live much like my great-great-grandparents did, and
build like they did. And I expect that the third, fourth, and fifth
generations of space colonists will find it progressively easier to
build larger and larger structures for a profit.

> > Why would you need an orbiting colony anyway? You only need
an
> > orbiting work camp with water and air recycling and rotation
for
> > gravity. A small hydroponic farm could grow some crop like
soy
> > beans for food. It might be mostly self sufficent but hardly
a
> > colony.

Of what use is a baby?

> > You may not need many people in orbit anyway. Teleoperated
robots
> > could do most of the work controlled from the ground. You
don't
> > need to feed a robot.
>

AI research still has a way to go before it can replicate the
decision-making ability of a human being. For teleoperated robots,
there is the time lag and communications windows to consider; not
impossible to control a robot that way, but very difficult.

If you see that a robot is about to make a move that will damage it,
then teleoperation can help as long as the time lag is less than the
time required for the robot to take that action; in the case of a
rover on Mars or an asteroid though, with a time lag measured in
minutes, your robot's toast.

The only way I can see robots and teleoperation used on a large
scale in space is if (a) the human controllers are in close
proximity to the robot, like a mission specialist is only a few
meters from the Canadarm on the shuttles (b) the AI becomes much
much better - this looks like it will happen, but it will take time
and hasn't happened yet.

For case (a) above, you need to send the people to control the
robots from close-up. For (b), you need to wait for the AI to get
better, and in the meantime option (a) would likely be pursued.

Although the current Mars rovers are teleoperated with a 40 minute
time lag, one wouldn't want to use them for any industrial
processes. An example of a robot used in industrial processes
similar to what will occur on the moon or Mars is the big trucks
used to carry ore from copper mines. They have some autonomous
features (they follow the road into and out of the mine by
themselves) but for fine control at either end they are remotely
operated with far less than a second of time lag.

> > Why do the industry in orbit? You could ship the parts up from
the
> > moon.
>

Some products might only be possible to produce in microgee
environments, such as large flimsy structures like an SPS. Other
products could not handle the acceleration given by a mass-driver on
the moon (the cheapest and most likely method of shipping raw
materials from the moon's surface).

> > The shipping costs for raw ore or finished parts is the same.
All
> > the people in orbit do is assemble the parts like building a
model
> > airplane and turn the things on.

What costs more - shipping a load of timber from the bush to a
sawmill, or shipping several loads of furniture equivalent to that
original truckload of logs?

>
> We've had lots of discussion on the minutia of what would be
needed
> on the moon to develop a rudimentary industry and also much
> discussion on the path towards the industrial development.

Some links would be helpful.

>
> > Since you know exactly what you need to build and what types
of
> > ores exist on the moon you could design automated smelters
and
> > automated factories.
>
> Here too you're presuming too much. Yes, there are *dark
factories*
> that exist in Japan but they are easy to access when the need
> servicing. If something goes wrong on the moon, then all
production
> will cease until you can get a specialist up there to solve the
> problem. We are still a long way from complete automation.
>

True, but partial automation is possible. Look at every task
involved, then ask: can we use a robot, that would already be in
place, to perform this task?

> > They would be expensive to ship but once on the moon you
never
> > need to ship them again. Shipping the parts into orbit via
mass
> > driver would cost as much per pound as shipping ore but a lot
of
> > ore has waste which a finished item would not.

True, there would be a lot of material other than a finished product
being sent up. And eventually there would be a second coilgun, much
longer and lower gees, for transporting people and finished products
to orbit.

Let's say that 50 kg of regolith is sent from the moon in one shot.
this page http://www.permanent.com/l-minera.htm shows the relative
proportions of various compounds present. Note the amount of oxygen
locked up in the rock, which would be extracted by industrial
processes in orbit, along with Silicon, Aluminum, Titanium... the
50kg slug would have about 21.5 kg of Oxygen locked up in the rock.
If you're catching a 50kg slug every few minutes (which wouldn't be
the violent effort Tangoman envisions), then you are getting a lot
of raw material to do a great many things.

Shipping liquid Oxygen derived from the regolith up from the moon
would require special care, probably a special tank and a chemical
booster. But shipping up regolith and then extracting the Oxygen is
safer, cheaper, and easier. Oxygen is a natural byproduct of the
other processes being performed on the raw stock. The processes in
orbit have nearly 24/7 access to cheap solar power. And the launch
of 50kg of regolith, over and over again, is safer and more reliable
than the launch of a chemical rocket. One wouldn't want to be
launching a tank of LOX down the first (high gee) coilgun on the
moon, though perhaps on the second. But by the time a second
(people and finished products) gun is built there wouldn't be any
need to send that cargo anyhow.

>
> The slag, once in orbit, would have some economic value for those
> who need shielding for their orbital projects.
>
> Also, look to my previous point on the viability of shipping
> finished products through 100+ gravity acceleration and then the
> sudden impact of catching the cargo.

No sudden impact at all tango, just a weensy course correction at
rendezvous.

>
> > You already have an industrial base on the moon, why build
a
> > second one in orbit? Nuclear power is safe on the moon or you
can
> > have power satelites beam power to the moon.
>
> How will you launch lunar manufactured photovoltaic cells, or 10
> meter long steel beams used in the construction of the SPS, to
orbit
> via a mass driver?

Unfortunately, we don't have that moon base quite yet. The first
moon bases will probably rely heavily on solar power and gradually
phase in nuclear power (maybe we'll find uranium on the moon?).
Although a few small thermal reactors have been used on deep space
missions, I doubt that anyone wants to risk the lives of people on
their reliability just yet. No large-scale nuclear reactors have
ever been built or used in space - that would be one of the things
that will have to be looked at towards the later years of the
current NASA plan.

>
> > Building a base on the moon involves building pressurized
huts
> > which is an easier task than building an orbital structure,
the
> > minerals are right there and you don't need to build
the "ground".
> > The engineering is certainly less complicated than a large
orbital
> > habitat.
>
> You're stating that building on the moon is *easier* but stating
> something is different from making the case for it. I for one
don't
> agree with you. The absense of weight will make moving mass a more
> efficient process in orbit.
>

"Easier" is a relative term and is heavily dependent upon the scale
involved. Of course building an outpost that holds ten people on
the moon would be easier than building a Bernal Sphere, using
today's technology. And of course, building a space island type
station http://www.spaceislandgroup.com would be easier than
building a huge complex like http://www.moonresortandcasino.com on
the moon, using today's technology.

Building things on the moon and building things in orbit present
different challenges and different opportunities. Sometimes those
are the same; zero gee can be a help and a hindrance, lunar soil is
great radiation shielding but has a nasty habit of blocking the sun
for 14 day stretches.

If the structures in question are of similar scale, then smaller
habitats are probably more easily built on the moon or launched from
the earth into orbit, and much larger habitats (1000 people or more)
would probably be more easily built in orbit, assuming equal
technology levels.

> > Even worse, if you talk to an average guy about building miles
long
> > objects in space he will look at you like you have a second
head!
>
> Just the way they must have looked when someone told them that we
> would be extracting power from atoms which no one could actually
see.
>
> Or maybe how we would dam the Colorado or Columbia rivers.
>

Or if you talk to him about dozens of miles long structures built on
earth like CERN. Or the bridge to PEI. Or a tunnel underneath the
English Channel. And forget about a 100000km long structure like
the proposed Space Elevator.

> > Lets not forget guys who take Star Trek seriously or...well, go
to
> > a con and see.
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't call Star Trek science fiction any more than I
> would call Lord of the Rings science fiction. It's pure
> unadulterated fantasy that just uses technology and future as a
> backdrop like LOTR used Middle Earth as a backdrop. I cringe
> whenever I watch Star Trek for all of the magic it invokes.

I would no more base space policy on a science fiction convention
than I would base Defence policy on a gun convention.

>
> Again, it's nice to have you joining us but you'll find a lot of
> answers to your questions in our archives.
>
> TangoMan

And if you don't feel like digging through ~5000 posts, just chime
in with a comment or a question and someone will want to reply.

Ed