Asteroid Belt First

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Ed Schonert" wrote:
> Sorry for holding such a divergent view but still believe
> we should shortcut all 4 of the Marshall Savage/Jack
> Reynolds steps. Just load up a vehicle with ~200 people
> & provisions for a 5 year expedition. Sister vehicle to
> make pair for simulating gravity could be a supplies
> carrier. Believe basic 2nd stage vehicle of my mass-
> transit space shuttle would work fine with only 200
> instead of the 800 passengers for such a long term
> residency. Believe we could just stay with liquid O2/
> liquid H2 engines by taking advantage of that slingshot-
> catapult effect from moon & Mars to get to asteroid belt.
> What is the need for LEO space station when we learned
> how to rendezvous from 60's Gemini program! Just
> rendezvous with several cargo shuttles to refill propellant
> tanks while in LEO. Honestly believe that even going
> direct to step 4 near earth asteroid is STILL short sighted.
> There will be no nearby asteroids to supplement supply
> of any resource missing on selected asteroid. We could
> have millions if not 100's of millions of people living
> in or near asteroid belt while you guys are still studying the
> 4 steps! If queen Isabella had you guys advising her they'd
> STILL be studying feasibility of letting Columbus sail across
> that ocean. Hoping I'm still a member, Ed S.

I enjoyed reading your post, though it was relatively vague in
specifics, so I'm going to ask you some specific questions. You
haven't offended me and I hope you're not upset with the questions I
pose to you.

First. Tell us more. I'd be interested in a step by step process of
your vision. If you can answer some of the questions I pose below,
then I will be less skeptical and I may buy into your criticism with
respect to Columbus, otherwise I'd say we'll see Icarus out at the
asteroids before before your dream comes to pass. :-)

Here are my questions.

1.)"Just load up a vehicle with ~200 people & provisions for a 5
year expedition."

a.) What vehicle will this be?
b.) Where will it come from?
c.) Who'll pay for it?
d.) Why would they pay for it? Profit, prestige, research . .
e.) Where will it be assembled?
f.) If assembled in LEO, where will the workers live for the years
it takes to complete?
g.) Will all of the fuel & oxidizer come from earth? Why?
h.) Will all of the components come from earth? Why?

2.) "Sister vehicle to make pair for simulating gravity could be a
supplies carrier."

a.) Why sister vehicle?
b.) What supplies would be necessary?
c.) What type of radiation shielding do you propose is used for 5
year voyage?
d.) Where would electrical power come from?
e.) Why have seperate purposes for the two ships?

3.) "Believe basic 2nd stage vehicle of my mass-transit space
shuttle would work fine with only 200 instead of the 800 passengers
for such a long term residency."

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this statement. Please
explain in more detail so the group can evaluate your idea's merit.

4.) "Believe we could just stay with liquid O2/liquid H2 engines by
taking advantage of that slingshot-catapult effect from moon & Mars
to get to asteroid belt."

a.) How will you slow the velocity when you approach your target
asteroid? There are no slingshots/aerobraking to slow you down out
there.
b.) How will you keep Liquid H2 in its cryogenic state for 5 years?
That's a very difficult proposition.

5.) "What is the need for LEO space station when we learned
how to rendezvous from 60's Gemini program!"

Surely, you're not advocating that an LEO station would only be good
for docking practice! Please elaborate your case on WHY a LEO
station is useless and how you would build your transport vehicles
without one.

6.) "Just rendezvous with several cargo shuttles to refill propellant
tanks while in LEO."

a.) What cargo shuttles are those?
b.)Do you really, honestly think only several shuttle loads of
propellant are going to get 200 people to the asteroids on a five
year journey? BTW, where did you come up with a five year transit
time?
c.) How much propellant/oxidizer will be required to achieve your
mission?
d.) Whatever the answer for question c) above, how much
propellant/oxidizer will be required to launch from earth the amount
needed for question c) above?
e.) Is launching every scrap of material from earth really the best
way to achieve your goal, rather than building an industrial
infrastructure in LEO? If so, why?

7.) "There will be no nearby asteroids to supplement supply
of any resource missing on selected asteroid."

a.) What do you mean nearby? Surely you don't mean delta-v, because
there are plenty of NEO that are delta-v close. If you mean actual
distance, then you're in for a surprise when you get out to the
belt, because the distances between objects out there are pretty
great. Basic geometry. The circumference of a circle increases as a
function of its radius. The orbits of the asteroids peppering the
belt are between 2.2 and 3.3 AU. At an average of 2.75 AU,
(412,500,000 KM) that orbit is 2,600,000,000 km in length. That's a
lot of volume to go hunting for asteroids in despite the increased
number of asteroids. The volume of inner space is much smaller.
Also, the total volume of ALL asteroids is estimated to be only 5%
that of the moon. What happens when your average asteroid miner's
space jalopy is in trouble and he's a billion km from home base?
Compare that to the 4-step program, where help is at most 250,000 km
away.

With light intensity follong the inverse sqaure law, assuming you're
at 2.75 AU, you'd need mirrors 7.56 times as large to get the same
solar power as we would in the LEO region. How is that cost
effective?

The way resources are distributed in the belt is in bands and in
families, not clusters. You won't find a whole range of different
composition asteroids within spitting distance of each other.
Rather, you'll find the asteroids move with different orbital speeds
and periods. So, two asteroids from the same composition family may
be on opposite sides of the Sun. That would be about the same
distance as Jupiter is from the Sun.

Consider that John S. Lewis, an acclaimed asteroid researcher, has
stated that there are 2,000 1-km+ sized asteroids in the terrestrial
planet region. This compares to 40,000 1-km+ sized asteroids in the
belt. Is this really that great a draw for our first stage
colonization effort? Those 2,000 NEO won't be of use to us?

8.) "We could have millions if not 100's of millions of people living
in or near asteroid belt while you guys are still studying the 4
steps!"

Sure, we COULD have many things happen. Aliens COULD give us
technology to go to the stars. We COULD all die from a NEO impact.
We COULD decide to live without technology. But each of these could
statements is relatively meaningless unless you make a case for it.

I really want to read the case you make for your proposition. It
would liven this group up with some good debate.

Lastly, WHY should we go to the asteroids to live, when there are
more fertile regions (energy, resources, markets, civilization,
personal travel... )nearer to us?

I hope you're OK with these specific questions of your proposal.
They'll help me understand how likely your proposal is to come to
pass, and how much thought you've put behind the statement you're
advocating.

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers.