Asteroid use

Marcel,

Perhaps when we start doing things that affect the entire world, then we should start thinking about a world government?

It may be that in order for us to successfully colonize the solar system, we must first successfully colonize Earth to the extent that we can go to space as earthlings rather than as a national?

Cheers,

Tom
From: Marcel Williams
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Asteroid use

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> From: Marcel Williams [mailto:newpapyrus@...]
>
> MW: If a 1000 tonne asteroid being transported to
> earth were to hit the Earth it would be the
> equivalent
> of a 2.5 megaton nuclear weapon. Obviously, such
> asteroids could be safely placed into Earth orbit.
> But
> would you trust dozens, if not hundreds of private
> companys to do this. What about asteroid
> transportation companies based in third world
> countries. An asteroid disaster would be a lot
> bigger
> than some damaged Liberian oil tanker. And the
> insurance cost would be-- astronomical-- if we
> attempted to place these asteroids in Earth orbit or
> even in Lunar orbit, IMO. And the environmental
> protest would make the anti-nuclear protest of
> 1970's
> look trivial.
>
> Mars, however, also has practically all of the
> natural
> resources necessary for human survival. And a much
> lower gravity well than the Earth. And there would
> be
> little protest about transporting hundreds of 1000
> to
> 10,000 tonne asteroids into Marsian orbit every year
> to be processed. The satellite market is estimated
> to
> be worth about 20 trillion dollars in the next 20
> years. The manufacturing of satellites out of
> asteroid
> materials in Mars orbit would allow Mars to dominate
> this potential 20 trillion dollar industry.
>
> MiKe Combs: I'll be the first to admit that protests
from
> self-styled "eco-activist" who
> aren't good at math will be a major hurtle to
> overcome. But I have a hard
> time getting from "Protesters will scream if you so
> much as bring an
> asteroid into cislunar space" to "Logically, Mars is
> the best place to build
> satellites from asteroidal resources". If the
> market for these satellites
> is an Earth market, that to me means the logical
> place to build them is HEO,
> where your workforce is much closer to Earth.

MW: Again, the politics of the protestors would be
minor compared to the financial cost of insurance. And
with many different companys from many different
countries, you're also going to have to deal with the
possibility of terrorism. Send a few 1000 tonne plus
asteroids with the power of thermonuclear weapons in
the direction of Israel or some other country might
kill a few million people. Would Israel trust an
Iraqi, Iranian, or Saudi Arabian asteroid minining
company? Any country, or company, that could
transport 1000 tonne plus asteroids would instantly
have the power of mass distruction. And the ability to
kill millions. As a potential hazard, it would be far
more dangerous than the nuclear power industry.
However, you can avoid all of this by only allowing
small asteroids to be transported to worlds not near
the terra-luna system such as Mars, Mercury, Venus.
>
> MiKe Combs: Maybe rather than bringing in asteroids
whole,
> perhaps we should only bring
> in greater numbers of multiple loads of ore, each of
> which would be too
> small to do major damage even if it did strike the
> Earth.

MW: Yes. And that could be done most efficiently on
the largest asteroids. However, if you attempted to do
this with smaller asteroids, you would probably have
to send people along with machines which would be far
more expensive than sending robotically controlled
lightsails to capture small asteroids.

Alternately, one
> could propose building the satellites in the Belt,
> and only importing the
> finished product. At least this would reduce the
> tonnage being nudged
> toward Earth, but one could skip the step of the
> stopover at Mars.
>
> MiKe Combs: Personally, I would vote for
transporting asteroidal
> resources to either L-4
> or L-5, which are stable on all 3 axis, and simply
> educating the populace
> that bringing in an asteroid at the distance of the
> moon would not pose a
> significant danger to the Earth.
>
MW: That worked wonderfully for the nuclear power
industry in America which has put that industry almost
out of business in the states.

>MiKe Combs: But if we're talking an Earth orbit
market, I
> wouldn't expect Main Belt
> resources to be used at all. I'd sooner expect use
> of NEOs, and lunar
> resources. I have no doubt that Main Belt asteroids
> will be used, but I
> think they'll be used in place, by folks living
> permanently in the Belt.

>
> Please forgive me, but this just strikes me as an
> attempt to involve Mars
> out of a sense of romance, with no real
> consideration of the value Mars adds
> to this process. I'd have thought that anyone on
> this maillist would be
> familiar with the work of Gerard O'Neill, the main
> thrust of which was that
> planets are not the best places for expanding
> industrial civilizations.
> Personally, I think Mars is going to have much less
> to do with the
> industrialization or settlement of space than what
> most people tend to
> think.
>
MW: I agree that in the long run, O'Neill type space
islands-- which I call cosmodromes-- are the best
places for expanding industrial civilization. But the
construction of such habitats will ony become
affordable after the industrialization of the Moon,
Mars, and the asteroids. And space islands will not
have a-- significant-- impact on human civilization,
IMO, until the 22nd century.

There is no doubt in my mind that the manufacturing
and launching of satellites from the surface of the
moon will ignite space industrialization. But the moon
lacks affordable access to elements like hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen, chlorine, that are essential in the
manufacturing process. Mars has all of these and and
also a significantly lower gravity well than the
earth and could transport these elements into orbit
and then by light sail to lunar orbit far more cheaply
than transporting them from the surface of the earth.
The industrialization of the Moon will not be
sucessful unless we also industrialize Mars, IMO. And
the cheapest place to transport and process small
asteroids would be in Mars orbit because the surface
of Mars which is as large as all the land area on
Earth could support easily support millions of people
who could operate remote controled orbital asteroid
processing stations from the marsian surface. And I
think Mars will dominate asteroid processing in the
solar system until cosmodromes finally come to
dominate this industry in the 22nd century.

> MW: Orbital telescopes would be a lot more expensive
> than lunar telescopes manufactured on the moon.
>
> MiKe Combs: I'm assuming use of lunar resources to
build them
> (provided that we're
> talking about really giant telescopes). In that
> case, the only added
> expense would be the cost of lifting the resources
> out of the lunar gravity
> well. O'Neill calculated that his mass driver could
> do this for pennies a
> pound. It's also likely that manufacturing
> processes in HEO will be less
> expensive than on the lunar surface due to the
> constant availability of
> sunlight. It's even possible that access to 0 G may
> have benefits. I don't
> think the difference in price tags would be all that
> much, and the added
> flexibility of being able to point wherever you want
> might be worth
> something.
>
> Also, a telescope built in 0 G could be even bigger
> and flimsier than what
> would be possible in 1/6th G.
>
MW: In the long run, it would be even cheaper just to
build the telescopes out of asteroid material. But
again, machines do have problems on occassion and it
would be much cheaper to walk or ride down to a nearby
telescope on the moon near your lunar base than to
take a rocket into orbit.

> MW: And
> lunar telescopes would be easier to maintain because
> there would be people there already. A space
> telescope
> would be a lot more expensive to repair.
>
> MiKe Combs: Why assume that there would be people
available on
> the lunar surface, but
> not in HEO? I thought this was the Space Settler's
> maillist, where we were
> taking it for granted that there are going to be
> space settlements.

MW: There will never be any large O'Neill type space
settlements until you first industrialize the Moon,
Mars, and the asteroids, IMO. And once you begin to
manufacture them, its going to take at least a century
before such artificial worlds have a significant
impact on the humanity to significantly reduce human
populations on Earth. But without industrializing the
moon, Mars, and the asteroids, it is unlikely that
such space islands will ever come true, IMO.

Marcel F. Williams
1/4/00

Perhaps when we start doing things that affect the entire world, then we should start thinking about a world government?

It may be that in order for us to successfully colonize the solar system, we must first successfully colonize Earth to the extent that we can go to space as earthlings rather than as a national?

Cheers,

Tom
From:
Marcel Williams
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject:
RE: [spacesettlers] Asteroid use
--- "Combs, Mike" <
mikecombs@...
> wrote:
> From: Marcel Williams [mailto:newpapyrus@...]
>

> MW: If a 1000 tonne asteroid being transported to
> earth were to hit the Earth it would be the
> equivalent
> of a 2.5 megaton nuclear weapon. Obviously, such
> asteroids could be safely placed into Earth orbit.
> But
> would you trust dozens, if not hundreds of private
> companys to do this. What about asteroid
> transportation companies based in third world
> countries. An asteroid disaster would be a lot
> bigger
> than some damaged Liberian oil tanker. And the
> insurance cost would be-- astronomical-- if we
> attempted to place these asteroids in Earth orbit or
> even in Lunar orbit, IMO. And the environmental
> protest would make the anti-nuclear protest of
> 1970's
> look trivial.
>
> Mars, however, also has practically all of the
> natural
> resources necessary for human survival. And a much
> lower gravity well than the Earth. And there would
> be
> little protest about transporting hundreds of 1000
> to
> 10,000 tonne asteroids into Marsian orbit every year
> to be processed. The satellite market is estimated
> to
> be worth about 20 trillion dollars in the next 20
> years. The manufacturing of satellites out of
> asteroid
> materials in Mars orbit would allow Mars to dominate
> this potential 20 trillion dollar industry.
>
> MiKe Combs: I'll be the first to admit that protests
from
> self-styled "eco-activist" who
> aren't good at math will be a major hurtle to
> overcome. But I have a hard
> time getting from "Protesters will scream if you so
> much as bring an
> asteroid into cislunar space" to "Logically, Mars is
> the best place to build
> satellites from asteroidal resources". If the
> market for these satellites
> is an Earth market, that to me means the logical
> place to build them is HEO,
> where your workforce is much closer to Earth.
MW: Again, the politics of the protestors would be
minor compared to the financial cost of insurance. And
with many different companys from many different
countries, you're also going to have to deal with the
possibility of terrorism. Send a few 1000 tonne plus
asteroids with the power of thermonuclear weapons in
the direction of Israel or some other country might
kill a few million people. Would Israel trust an
Iraqi, Iranian, or Saudi Arabian asteroid minining
company? Any country, or company, that could
transport 1000 tonne plus asteroids would instantly
have the power of mass distruction. And the ability to
kill millions. As a potential hazard, it would be far
more dangerous than the nuclear power industry.
However, you can avoid all of this by only allowing
small asteroids to be transported to worlds not near
the terra-luna system such as Mars, Mercury, Venus.
>
MiKe Combs: Maybe rather than bringing in asteroids
whole,
> perhaps we should only bring
> in greater numbers of multiple loads of ore, each of
> which would be too
> small to do major damage even if it did strike the
> Earth.
MW: Yes. And that could be done most efficiently on
the largest asteroids. However, if you attempted to do
this with smaller asteroids, you would probably have
to send people along with machines which would be far
more expensive than sending robotically controlled
lightsails to capture small asteroids.
Alternately, one
> could propose building the satellites in the Belt,
> and only importing the
> finished product. At least this would reduce the
> tonnage being nudged
> toward Earth, but one could skip the step of the
> stopover at Mars.
>
> MiKe Combs: Personally, I would vote for
transporting asteroidal
> resources to either L-4
> or L-5, which are stable on all 3 axis, and simply
> educating the populace
> that bringing in an asteroid at the distance of the
> moon would not pose a
> significant danger to the Earth.
>
MW: That worked wonderfully for the nuclear power
industry in America which has put that industry almost
out of business in the states.
>MiKe Combs: But if we're talking an Earth orbit
market, I
> wouldn't expect Main Belt
> resources to be used at all. I'd sooner expect use
> of NEOs, and lunar
> resources. I have no doubt that Main Belt asteroids
> will be used, but I
> think they'll be used in place, by folks living
> permanently in the Belt.
>
> Please forgive me, but this just strikes me as an
> attempt to involve Mars
> out of a sense of romance, with no real
> consideration of the value Mars adds
> to this process. I'd have thought that anyone on
> this maillist would be
> familiar with the work of Gerard O'Neill, the main
> thrust of which was that
> planets are not the best places for expanding
> industrial civilizations.
> Personally, I think Mars is going to have much less
> to do with the
> industrialization or settlement of space than what
> most people tend to
> think.
>
MW: I agree that in the long run, O'Neill type space
islands-- which I call cosmodromes-- are the best
places for expanding industrial civilization. But the
construction of such habitats will ony become
affordable after the industrialization of the Moon,
Mars, and the asteroids. And space islands will not
have a-- significant-- impact on human civilization,
IMO, until the 22nd century.
There is no doubt in my mind that the manufacturing
and launching of satellites from the surface of the
moon will ignite space industrialization. But the moon
lacks affordable access to elements like hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen, chlorine, that are essential in the
manufacturing process. Mars has all of these and and
also a significantly lower gravity well than the
earth and could transport these elements into orbit
and then by light sail to lunar orbit far more cheaply
than transporting them from the surface of the earth.
The industrialization of the Moon will not be
sucessful unless we also industrialize Mars, IMO. And
the cheapest place to transport and process small
asteroids would be in Mars orbit because the surface
of Mars which is as large as all the land area on
Earth could support easily support millions of people
who could operate remote controled orbital asteroid
processing stations from the marsian surface. And I
think Mars will dominate asteroid processing in the
solar system until cosmodromes finally come to
dominate this industry in the 22nd century.

> MW: Orbital telescopes would be a lot more expensive
> than lunar telescopes manufactured on the moon.
>
> MiKe Combs: I'm assuming use of lunar resources to
build them
(provided that we're
> talking about really giant telescopes). In that
> case, the only added
> expense would be the cost of lifting the resources
> out of the lunar gravity
> well. O'Neill calculated that his mass driver could
> do this for pennies a
> pound. It's also likely that manufacturing
processes in HEO will be less
> expensive than on the lunar surface due to the
> constant availability of
> sunlight. It's even possible that access to 0 G may
> have benefits. I don't
> think the difference in price tags would be all that
> much, and the added
> flexibility of being able to point wherever you want
> might be worth
> something.
>
> Also, a telescope built in 0 G could be even bigger
> and flimsier than what
> would be possible in 1/6th G.
>
MW: In the long run, it would be even cheaper just to
build the telescopes out of asteroid material. But
again, machines do have problems on occassion and it
would be much cheaper to walk or ride down to a nearby
telescope on the moon near your lunar base than to
take a rocket into orbit.
> MW: And
> lunar telescopes would be easier to maintain because
> there would be people there already. A space
> telescope
> would be a lot more expensive to repair.
>
> MiKe Combs: Why assume that there would be people
available on
> the lunar surface, but
> not in HEO? I thought this was the Space Settler's
> maillist, where we were
> taking it for granted that there are going to be
> space settlements.
MW: There will never be any large O'Neill type space
settlements until you first industrialize the Moon,
Mars, and the asteroids, IMO. And once you begin to
manufacture them, its going to take at least a century
before such artificial worlds have a significant
impact on the humanity to significantly reduce human
populations on Earth. But without industrializing the
moon, Mars, and the asteroids, it is unlikely that
such space islands will ever come true, IMO.
Marcel F. Williams
1/4/00