Volunteerism vs. Rewards for Space Settlement (Was R

> The entire issue of SPS as a means of economically
> support for the space colonies is obsolete from my
> point of view.

I eagerly await your analysis of what other economic activity can
justify building either stations or Habitats in orbit.

> We must achieve space colonies with a step by step
> approach, with new but feasible technologies like an
> antirely reusable commercial type space transportation
> system from earth,

Why is this essential to the habitation of space? What *new*
technology do you have in mind? Something with a higher ISp than
current rockets? What fuels would be used? Also, by what criteria
would a new system be feasible that existing systems fail to meet?

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you have this vision then I
think I, and others, would like to know what led you to adopt this
vision. Of course, we're assuming there are reasons, rather than
wishful thinking. So, don't take offense at some of these blunt questions.

> deflect small asteroids

Where will the energy for moving such a large (yes, even small
asteroids have a large mass) mass?

> and insert them in cycler orbits to major destinations, use them as
> transportation to moon

Yes, the Aldrin Cycler concept. It sure is a neat idea, but why is
this an innovative solution to the problem? What leads you to believe
that this will lower costs and increase efficiency?

> and
and expand from there.

Why? What will the people living on a Cycler transitting between Earth
and Mars do? Why are they living there? What are they manufacturing or
exporting? Are they information service workers telecommuting with
jobs on Earth? How about the ever-dynamic time lag? Why couldn't
people on Earth do the job cheaper?

> They will be economically independent by supplying
> trasnporation, food, lodging and services to manned
> expeditions to >Moon and > there.

Why are there so many people going to the Moon and Mars that they need
an Aldrin Cycler and a dedicated population to serve them? Where will
these people get their toilet paper, toothbrushes, socks, scissors,
forks, eyeglasses, pacemakers, hair dye, soy sauce, etc? If they
import all of this from Earth and all they have to offer in exchange
is food and lodging, do you think that the trade will be in balance
and that they really will be "economically independent?" I don't.
Please share with us why you think they will be independent? Also, why
do you need a population to provide food and lodging? Couldn't the
Cycler be empty until these travellers arrive?

> From small, first generations habitats for 4\6 people
> they will grow to bigger second generations habitats
> for up to 100 people supplying transportation services
> for bigger numbers of passengers and so on

Transportation to where? Why are all these people going to all these
places? What's out there? Who builds these small and then intermediate
stations? Who supplies the transportation vehicle? Where do they get
it from?

> Only with a profit making immediate activity we can
> justify space colonization, at least at the beginning,
> and in free space and not in a particular body.

Yes, that seems to be the consensus of the people on this list.

> Space colonies to be realistic , like our cities, must
> grow like that, starting from a small nucleus and, if
> vital and economically feasible , keep growing.

Why do you think that an organic city growth model is applicable to
orbital development scenarios. In the city models, the marginal cost
of adding another worker, business, facility, etc are minor compared
to orbit. If you have immediate need for 4 people in orbit and thus
you build a station to house 4 people, then you're shit out of luck
when you need that 5th person. Time to build a whole station for one
person.

> Space settlements must follow our history of growing
> communities to be successful by having built in
> flexibility, expansion capability and economic
> feasibility.

Why must they? Don't you think that the conditions in orbit are
different than the conditions on Earth?

Why must the future always be like the past. If every son followed in
his father's footsteps because that has always been the way things
were done, then there would never be innovation.

Looking forward to your response.

TangoMan