first post thoughts...

Henry,

First of all I would like to thank you for replying to my post. I
think that is what is needed if the dream of Space Colonization is
ever to become more than a "what if" topic of discussion. Let me add
that my posts, this reply included, are not intended to anger,
berate, or belittle anyone's opinions, concepts or ideas. I only wish
to engage in open discussion with like-minded individuals who may,
and probably do, have differing opinions. If you dont like my
opinions, disagree with me, or even have ideas that may complement
mine, let me know. I am not an engineer, dont work for nasa, and
definitely dont know everything. On the other hand, I dont think that
beating around the bush is the best way for people to discuss
anything.

I think you made good points about tourism and industry. However,
your points about trading up rather than growth to meet population
demand seem to me to be self-defeating. The whole concept here must
be to spend as little cash and time as possible, while still
providing for the needs of the populace. If we were to just chuck one
colony in favor of a new and improved model, the cost will rapidly
become as astronomical as the space we are trying to achieve. I
remember reading a story set in the hills of West Virginia about life
in a mining town. The town was a company town, owned by the local
mining consortium. Where everyone in the town was almost literally
owned by the consortium. If we are to do that, what we would create
is ghettos in space.

You also mentioned Plymouth Bay and Jamestown when talking about
starter settlements. The problem there is that they were started as a
program to relieve pressure of the prisons on the home islands. A
never ending mountain of debt will make your space borne islands the
same thing. So the question becomes, how to do this without incurring
that mountain of debt? Some of the ways I came up with to do
that are:
Simplicity- design and build a platform that is as simple as possible
and requires only assembly on location. This, of course, leaves out
the giant wheels turning in space that most every one seems so fond
of. While the rotating wheel may be the best shape and method in the
long run, we are going to have to start on a smaller scale. We don't
have the technology to inexpensively place giant wheels in space at
this time; there are, however, simpler designs available which
circumvent a lot of the technical difficulties such a project would
create. Designs which could be built on earth, disassembled and
packed into very small (for their ultimate size) packages for
transport into orbit. Where they can be re-assembled and plugged in.
Versatility- using a simple design, we must make this installation as
versatile as possible. In this way we can achieve the "most bang for
the buck", as it were. One designed unit that can serve as space
station, ship and landed "beachhead" (for such uses as initial mining
operations on the moon and/or larger asteroids). This one design
could be quickly, and with relative ease, modified and/or adapted to
meet most, if not all, of a viable space operation's needs; for a
whole lot less, in terms of time, manpower, and capital, than the
requirement to build purpose built vessels and installations.
Expandability- not included in the versatility argument, but just as
important, is the cost of expansion vs. cost of new construction. It
would seem that the cost of additional modules would be far
preferable to the cost of building a whole new installation whenever
the original one got crowded.
Standardization- this is the key to the whole thing. To make
everything the same, differing only in size and internal design. With
a standardized design, the only difference in space borne modules and
those intended to be grounded would be the inclusion or absence of a
carousel for pseudo-gravity. Whereas, the only difference between an
orbital station and a ship would be simply a change in internal
electronics, some switches, and what you attach the module to. I
believe that there should be a minimum of three(3) standard sizes of
module: thirty(30), forty-five(45), and sixty(60) foot modules, with
a one hundred(100) foot module available for specific use. These
modules should cover the entire spectrum of need for quite a long
time to come.

If you, or anyone, are/is interested in hearing more, I would love to
talk about it. I probably don't have all the answers and talking
about it will help me to find those answers.

Thank you for your time

Patryk