New Member

> > That's scares
> > me. Perhaps fusion is the way to go.
>
> First, your argument of "every new technology may bring adverse side
> effects" (DDT, freon, etc) can be equally used against fusion.
>
> Second, my problem with fusion is that it has been researched for the
> past 50 years and there is no sign that we are close to break even.
> (According to Murphy's Law, though, tomorrow sustained fusion will be
> reached just because I wrote this. :-) SPSs, on the other hand, would
> use just simple principles like microwaves and photovoltaics, know and
> used for decades. We do not need to wait a breakthrough in physics to
> get that...
>

So have space habitats. It's almost Year 29 (anno O'Neill), and we're
not any closer there. The only difference is, fusion has gone beyond
the "sit in a room and cerebrate about solutions" level. And the fact
that nothing so far has worked puts me in mind of Edison, who, when
asked after his 500th failed light bulb experiment if he was wasting
his time, replied, "Wasting my time? Man, I've learned 500 ways not
to make a light bulb!"

As with fusion, suburbanizing space will see unexpected problems in
achieving technological solutions to critical unforseen difficulties.
At this time, those failures (hopefully not as many as 500) will mean
great loss of invested capital AND possibly fatalities on the order of
multiple 747 airliner disasters.

Pollution will have to get VERY bad, and Earth-centered energy
production VERY expensive, before anyone will want to risk building
space habitats because of their income potential.

Whoever suggested tourism as the first Space Industry may have been
right. It wouldn't require as much infrastructure or staffing. Let's
see how Virgin Spaceways does with its "edge-of-space" tourist flights.

Steve