Futuof Space Colonization

--- Ed Schonert wrote:
> Perhaps that handsome payback to the owners I mentioned will end up being
> to spacesettlers! My vision is 1000's of G.K.O'Neill model colonies each
with
> ~10000 population operating in solar system or in groups on expeditions to
> nearby stars.

I would expect each colony to be somewhat larger then ~10 000 people. Whilst
there are advantages to incremental growth economies of scale will make larger
colonies preferable. The one thing that needs to be known when planning them
is that they will fill up if you give them time so in the long term a larger
colony will probably be better. Hopefully we'll get around to changing from a
short term to a long term bias (which would solve quite a lot of the problems
in the world today).

> Let's give up on the "space elevator" & "laser propulsion" concepts for now
> & just go back to using 9 Saturn V booster engines in a high speed magnetic
> levitation supported ground takeoff winged recoverable 1st stage & U.S.
> Space Shuttle SSME engine powered recoverable 2nd stage.

I wouldn't give up on them. They might work and if they do and are better then
rockets we'll use them. Of course we'll also have to make sure we can do it
with rockets which whilst it'll be a bit harder and will take longer could
still be done (as long as it's before the next rock hits us, we're overdue).

> Should orbit 800 people @ total propellant consumption of: (in US gallons)
> 418000 of kerosine + 202000 of liquid H2 + 716000 of liquid O2
> Same basic system with cargo adaptation of 2nd stage should orbit a payload
> of 100+ metric tons. (based on a 200 mile orbit elev.)

What do you think you're doing with your measurements? Either use metric
exclusively (prefered because it's the international standard and easier to
work with) or use Imperial exclusively (not as good, it's also harder to work
with). You really should avoid using gallons and miles then using metric
tonnes. Propellant consumption is probably better measured by mass of
propellent instead of volume although including both is a good idea as volume
is also quite important as well.

> I believe G.K.O'Neill favored the Bernal Sphere colony design illustrated
> on cover & plate 5 of "The High Frontier". Why don't we just take that
design
> & go with it!

Personally I prefer the stanford torus due to the larger rotational radius.
For the first one it'll either be stanford torus or Bernal sphere. That will
be decided upon by whoever has to pay for it. Later on we'll just let the
colonists select the designs that are best for them.