Redesigning O Neill cylinders

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Patrick"

> True...I guess my model is that the rationale for going into space
big > time will be economic - mining & manufacturing - for quite a
while, > and this will drive the types of space habitats for quite
a time > therefore.

I too like to address the underlying economic issues and have sympathy
with your approach but I think that you're starting with some
fundamental premises based on the way things are on Earth that don't
necessarily hold for orbit.

Orbit will have onerous transportation costs to and fro. That means
that a model premised on Earth Work Camps, such as slying a helicopter
to an oil platform and then coming back to relieve the workers 2 weeks
later, doesn't translate too well for orbit, moon, NEO camps. Those
workers need to be there for much longer hauls - in order to minimize
transportation costs.

Now, you may posit that workers will be happy to sign up for a two
year stretch living in the orbital equivalent of a nuclear submarine,
but I think that that assumption needs to be justified. Where on Earth
does one find that situation? Antartctic camps, but they are more
roomy. Submarines, but not for as long a stretch.

It might actually be cheaper to send up couple and families and
amortizing their added mass by further extending the tour of duty -
perhaps even making it permanent.

The initial foothold in orbit will be the most expensive to establish
because piece of machinary must be lifted from Earth. As things ramp
up though, added mass processing can leverage off of existing orbital
infrastructure and this will lower the cost of expanding orbital
facilities, while the physics of Earth launch, and most likely the
expense, will be more tightly constrained.

Also, don't look on family members in orbit as a deadweight economic
loss. They'll be consumers and producers. Once they are there, the
cost of getting them there is a sunk cost, which was incurred for
psychic soothing of the people who are there for the primary mission.
Now the question becomes, what can some of those family members do to
add productivity to the mission. Primarily, I think they'll be
involved in import substitution activities and providing service.
These activities by themselves will create wealth. The more wealth
that is created in orbit the better. All wealth creation need not be
focused on exporting to Earth.

So, in a round about way, I think that launch costs will work against
short stays in orbit, stays in orbit can be extended by providing a
semblance of normal life (sex, family, recreation, variety of people,
variety of non-work related tasks, etc.) These workers may begin to
feel invested in their orbital presence (pioneer spirit) and build on
that feeling by bootstrapping the early equipment into making more
equipment which can be used to expand habitat which makes it more
desireable to contemplate permanent status, which lowers the costs of
transporting workets to and fro.

IOW, I don't buy into the premise of work camps that I think is
underlying your modeling assumption.

TangoMan