Spinning [WAS] Island One, Two and Three

From: sardonius2000 [mailto:sardonius2000@netscape.net]

"Hi Tangoman, I don't think you can say SPS beats LSPS hands down, SPS
might be more efficient and less complicated but it will be far cheaper
to build solar panels out of available lunar materials than to transport
those materials from the Moon (with a mass driver) or an NEO to an SPS
construction site. If you've got any definitive data which proves SPS is
superior to LSPS I'd very much like to read it."

It's true the issue very much turns on transportation costs for lifting
lunar materials up to HEO. But personally, my bets are still on
lunar-derived SPS in GEO. I just can't see how power plants which are
only operational half the time can compete economically with ones
operating 99% of the time, even if they are cheaper to build. The
construction cost is a one-time expense. The 50% duty cycle is an
ongoing disadvantage for the life of the power plant.

"Building domes on Mars would be a lot cheaper than space habitats."

Are you sure? This is majority thinking, but it could simply be a bias.
I talk about that a bit here:
http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/somewhere_else.htm

"And if the sky hook is practicle it will undoubtedly be built."

It can't be denied that a skyhook would be an easier proposition for
Mars than for Earth. Which is a darn shame since Earth is where we
presently sit.

I think the notion that a Mars skyhook will be invaluable to Belt
development and exploration of the outer system proceeds from an
assumption that humans can only be properly supported on planetary
surfaces. So the notion goes that a Mars skyhook combines the planetary
surface with the ease of access to space. But I think the best solution
of all to planetary gravity wells is to not get into them in the first
place. I'm convinced that the people who will develop the Belt will not
commute but live there, and call it home.

Regards,

Mike Combs