Space News Letter to Editor

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 01:36 AM, Fiona Sawyer wrote:

> Could some one please explain whether an asteroid, if it can be manned
> or mined will also have other geographical formations?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'other geographical formations.'

> An ignoramaus
>
> From: Ryan Zelnio
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Space News Letter to Editor
>
> Al,
>
> I don't think Whittington would disagree with you. As
> he stated in his article: "It means establishment of,
> not just space stations ir bases, but of human
> settlements on the Moon, Mars and other places found
> to be suitable". Your proposal definitely fits in the
> other places.
>
> The lunar plan he outlined he stated was just an
> example of how one such program may be implemented. I
> think the overall point is one I agree with. That an
> incremental approach is needed, with specific goals
> that need to be met at each step.
>
> His arguement is that once we have any step made in
> making an established presence in space, the rest of
> the settlement types will follow. I believe this
> includes orbital colonies.
>
> I agree that in the long term, orbital colonies make
> the most sense. However, the incremental nature of
> our space program needs something that allows
> politicians and bureaucrats to mark off clearly
> defined goals as accomplished. Going the lunar path
> allows for easy, clearly marked steps to follow.
>
> Instead of arguing the merits of moon vs orbital vs
> mars, I think it may be better to outline an example
> of easy to reach steps with an attached outlined
> timeline.
>
> If I remember correctly, Victoriatangoman had started
> work on something of this nature...
>
> Ryan Z
>
> --- Al Globus wrote:
>> I just sent this to Space News. Thought the group
>> might be mildly
>> interested:
>>
>> I agree heartily with Mark Whittington ("Missing the
>> Big Picture,"
>> Space News 5 May) that space settlement is a goal
>> truly worthy of a $15
>> billion/year space program. If I may offer a slight
>> change of course:
>> the Moon and Mars are great places for science and
>> exploration but
>> lousy places to live. Our goal should be orbital
>> space settlements:
>> kilometer scale spacecraft housing thousands of
>> people each, initially
>> in earth orbit and later throughout the solar
>> system. Princeton
>> professor Gerard O'Neill proved that these are
>> possible, although very
>> expensive. True, many materials are easier to obtain
>> on the lunar or
>> martian surface as opposed to orbit, but near-earth
>> asteroids can
>> supply ample materials and some are energetically
>> closer to Earth orbit
>> than the Moon is. In most other aspects, orbital
>> colonies are vastly
>> superior to lunar or martian colonies. Consider:
>>
>> - orbital colonies have ample solar energy 24/7
>> rather than half time.
>> - large pressurized structures will be much easier
>> to build in 0g.
>> - orbital colonies can be much closer to Earth,
>> vastly simplifying
>> logistics, particularly in comparison with Mars.
>> - while orbital colonies can be rotated to supply
>> any desirable
>> psuedo-gravity level, Mars and the Moon have much
>> weaker gravity than
>> Earth with unknown consequences on developing
>> children.
>> - near the axis of rotation orbital colonists can
>> enjoy 0g recreation
>> (and manufacturing).
>> - the view from many orbits (particularly near
>> Earth, Saturn and
>> Jupiter) is absolutely fantastic, and always
>> changing.
>> - the surface of Mars and the Moon combined is
>> roughly equal to the
>> surface area of Earth, whereas the materials from a
>> single large
>> asteroid can build orbital colonies with a livable
>> surface area of at
>> least 500 times the surface area of Earth (yes, five
>> hundred time,
>> that's not a misprint).
>>
>> The problem, of course, is inadequate Earth-to-orbit
>> transportation.
>> NASA should be spending at least half it's budget on
>> this and cut
>> whatever else needs to be cut. In particular, I
>> suggest:
>>
>> - a robust propulsion and materials R&D program
>> - improving the usability of test and launch
>> facilities and making them
>> available to private industry
>> - a program to buy the first 10-15 orbital launches
>> of any new US
>> launch vehicle. This effectively pays for a flight
>> test program and
>> will allow private developers to borrow development
>> funds. The
>> taxpayer only pays for success (contrast this with
>> the flightless
>> aerospace plane, X33, and X34). Note that a stimulus
>> for sub-orbital
>> launch does not appear necessary, the X-Prize and
>> potential tourist
>> market seem to be adequate.
>> - a robust program to identify and minimize damage
>> to the atmosphere
>> from future large scale launch activity.
>>
>> In any case, our future can be in orbit. We can,
>> and should, build
>> thousands of orbital space colonies and bring this
>> solar system fully
>> to life.
>>
>>
>
> -
>>
>> ---------------------
>> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because
>> they weren't
>> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought
>> "Well, dinosaurs
>> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary.
>> Maybe I'll should
>> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing
>> systems to detect
>> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space
>> colonies to spread
>> beyond Earth to insure life would survive a
>> planetary catastrophe.
>>
>> Al Globus
>> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
>> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>>
>> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions
>> and are not the
>> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>>
>>
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.